f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Gaming => Topic started by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 08:05:31 AM



Title: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 08:05:31 AM
Ye olde corporate Homepage:
http://www.zenimaxonline.com/index.html (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/index.html)

...And they got a recruiting booth at the AGDC:
http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_austin_gdc_recruiting.html (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_austin_gdc_recruiting.html)

President is Matt Firor, one of the founders of Mythic Entertainment and original Producer of Dark Age of Camelot.

Hmm... :drillf:  :awesome_for_real:

Cliff Racer killed : 0/235354956968


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: NiX on September 15, 2008, 08:41:59 AM
I'm tired of hearing companies say they're working on a "AAA" title. At best they'll release a "B" quality game.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Murgos on September 15, 2008, 03:26:50 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 05:51:49 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...

AFAIK, Interplay still has the rights for that, not Bethesda   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: UnSub on September 15, 2008, 09:40:02 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...

AFAIK, Interplay still has the rights for that, not Bethesda   :ye_gods:

... and they only need $75 million dollars before they'll get to work on it.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: schild on September 16, 2008, 12:06:26 AM
Wait, this is new to the public?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Wasted on September 16, 2008, 05:14:38 AM
Its not even new here, though that particular news is further confirmation I guess?

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=12091.0 (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=12091.0)

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11217.0 (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11217.0)

Poor schild, so weighted with his arcane secrets and lore he can no longer ever be one of us again  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Renegade on September 20, 2008, 04:15:33 PM
Urgh....Imagine a world populated by those horrible Oblivion characters being controlled by other people. How are Bethesda going to manage MMO balance when they can't get a simple RPG progression system correct in a single player game?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: HaemishM on September 22, 2008, 09:58:02 AM
How are Bethesda going to manage MMO balance when they can't get a simple RPG progression system correct in a single player game?

As badly as every other MMOG dev out there?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 09:55:42 AM
Aaaand:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

Quote
An in-depth look at everything from solo questing to public dungeons awaits in our enormous June cover story – as well as a peek at the player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself.

Come back tomorrow morning for a brief teaser trailer from Zenimax Online and Bethesda Softworks, and later on in the afternoon for the first screenshot of the game. Over the course of the month, be sure to visit our Elder Scrolls Online hub, which will feature new exclusive content multiple times each week. You'll meet the three player factions, see video interviews with the creative leads, and much more.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: koro on May 03, 2012, 09:56:20 AM
I love TES and I love MMOs, but I can't really get myself excited for the prospect of a TES MMO.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Threash on May 03, 2012, 09:57:27 AM
I'm excited at the prospect of three fucking factions in pvp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: IainC on May 03, 2012, 10:15:56 AM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 03, 2012, 10:27:42 AM
Also I'm hearing that this is using the Hero Engine? If that's true, then I can't imagine TESO bringing in the level of detail that people would have come to expect in a TES game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: luckton on May 03, 2012, 10:38:08 AM
Also I'm hearing that this is using the Hero Engine? If that's true, then I can't imagine TESO bringing in the level of detail that people would have come to expect in a TES game.

I dunno...the way some people around talk about Hero Engine, it sounds like the folks at Bioware are justa bunch of punk slackers who don't know their shit.  On the other hand, if a totally separate company still manages to make a crap game and it gets blamed on the engine, does that discredit everyone that said Hero Engine was the stuff of gods?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on May 03, 2012, 10:48:23 AM
Guess I'll start saving my pennies for a new system. I'm not ashamed to admit I've been waiting for this for years. It probably won't turn out anything like what I want or imagine but it's the only future MMO I'm looking forward to, or at least looking forward to how it turns out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 03, 2012, 10:48:58 AM
Do not confuse Engine layer with Game layer. The two rarely meet on any given design.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 03, 2012, 11:25:23 AM
Meh.  Elder Scrolls is all about open world, doing what you want, etc.  I don't see that translating into a popular MMO these days.  Which means, Elder Scrolls DIKU incoming, (maybe they will try something TOR-like which is equally uninteresting to me). :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 11:43:54 AM
who knows, maybe we'll get a "sandpark" like XL Games is trying to do with Archage  :awesome_for_real:

(Temporary) Official forums:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/forum/190-elder-scrolls-online-general-discussion/

Special website on GameInformer (that will fill up starting tomorrow):

http://www.gameinformer.com/p/elderscrollsonline.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 03, 2012, 11:51:55 AM
yay?

let's hope for the best


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 12:45:43 PM
If they make combat about button mashing abilities, this game will be DOA. I'm hoping, hoping, HOPING, they don't try to make a loot centered raiding don't stand in the fire clone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 03, 2012, 12:49:38 PM
Combat has to be at least like Oblivion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 03, 2012, 12:58:28 PM
I don't have a beef with DIKU like a lot of people here and even I cringe at the idea of raiding to kill some daedric lord and arguing over who gets his pants.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on May 03, 2012, 01:32:41 PM
This is a terrible idea and can only be happening because the work is already underway and has been for some time. Otherwise just looking at SWTOR would be enough to convince anyone that it shouldn't be done.

Oh and I await the interface from HELL.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 01:33:11 PM
Oh and they will release it for consoles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 03, 2012, 01:42:55 PM
2013?!?

Wonder if they'll be showing at E3.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2012, 01:50:08 PM
I suspect this will have more in common with Minecraft than WoW.

Edit: Diablo 2 is a better example. Emphasis on loot & exploring procedurally-generated areas with defined hubs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: NiX on May 03, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 03, 2012, 03:53:43 PM
Sandbox. Please. PLEASE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 03, 2012, 04:59:02 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 04:59:33 PM
I've been reading the leaked Game Informer digital issue (which seems legit) through another website and.... :heartbreak:  :sad_panda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
There are some leaks of the Game Informer article around the internet now.  Let's just say, from what I read, I have cancelled my pre order of TSW, and thoughts of GW2 and TERA have fled my mind.  I'm going to play my old standbys til this game comes out.  I have pretty huge confidence that Firor and team are going to deliver.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 05:00:51 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


Matt Firor and his team were LONG gone from Mythic before WAR.  Marc Jacobs and his new hires ruined that game all by themselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 05:01:29 PM
I've been reading the leaked Game Informer digital issue (which seems legit) through another website and.... :heartbreak:  :sad_panda:

Haha, we must have very different taste :)


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Scold on May 03, 2012, 05:02:03 PM
My (likely unpopular) take: DAoC was a shit MMO in both PvP and PvE, Oblivion was a mediocre at best RPG that lacked heart and engaging content... match made in heaven, I guess?

Sandbox. Please. PLEASE.

That's a good one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 03, 2012, 05:41:00 PM
I guess a player can become emperor? Is that true?

ALL HAIL THE NEW EMPEROR: xXx_WeeDGokU_xXx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 06:06:53 PM

Fairly inevitable, but the company is so poor at coming up with game mechanics and balance it should be fairly hilarious. And this time you won't be able to download mods to correct their flaws.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 06:15:28 PM

Fairly inevitable, but the company is so poor at coming up with game mechanics and balance it should be fairly hilarious. And this time you won't be able to download mods to correct their flaws.


Bethesda isn't making this.  If they were, I wouldn't really be very optimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on May 03, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
Long info dump after the break, taken from GAF:


Hotbar combat (limited skill selection, can swap out of combat, ala D3/GW2), third person, no player housing, 'classes and experience and aother traditional MMORPG progression mechanics'


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Redgiant on May 03, 2012, 06:21:10 PM
Oh and I await the interface from HELL.

Oh God, this.

I buy every TES game, and I promptly give up after the first week with the awful (nay criminal) UI for a modern PC game.

The only interest for me is seeing Matt Firor and others fro DAoC/Mythic on it. Maybe they'll use it as a springboard excuse to do a true DAoC successor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tearofsoul on May 03, 2012, 06:32:47 PM
3 factions bitches!  :pedobear:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 06:38:26 PM
The idea that the "Lore" of the elder scrolls world has any value, as championed in that article, is hilarious. It was just an expanse to walk through looking for points of interest and things to kill. The PvP section could have been written as "Like GW2 is doing without the server vs server aspect to keep it fresh".

Oh well, it's only a fluff article. I look forward to learning more when the NDA drops.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 07:27:17 PM
Quote
-Third person perspective
-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs
-Visually it looks like other Hero Engine MMOs like SWTOR
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage

-"It needs to be comfortable for people who are coming in from a typical massively multiplayer game that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."

-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."

-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches

Sometimes I think WoW wasn't a game Blizzard designed to make money, it was a game they designed to destroy rival game studios one by one for the sheer villainy of it.

This sounds like what everyone thought it was going to be. WoW with a TES paintjob, on the Hero engine no less. Good fucking game MMO industry, you guys are the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 07:30:40 PM
If they make combat about button mashing abilities, this game will be DOA. I'm hoping, hoping, HOPING, they don't try to make a loot centered raiding don't stand in the fire clone.

Nevermind. Fuck this game and let it die in the writhing pit with the rest of the clones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:35:27 PM
Is it a reading comprehension thing?  Where in the article does it say the game is just like WOW?

-No quest hubs.  This is one huge difference, which leads to:
-Massive open world you can explore and get rewarded for doing quest like things organically - no quest giver - i.e. you find a barrow of undead, you clear them, and the shade you put to rest gives you a reward
-Endurance management that allows you to: block, sprint, break CC, fire off big attacks (all classes need to manage this)
-Skill combos that you can chain off your own abilities or your allies'
-Perpetual PVP zone in the center of the world map where you fight over cities, farms, keeps, towers, mines
-Open, non-instanced dungeons
-Three factions
-Graphics that are really nothing like WOW - more like non plastic looking EQ2

I could go on and on, but really, try to read the leaks a little more carefully.  It doesn't sound like WOW 2.0 to me, it sounds like DAOC 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 07:40:21 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Quote
-Open, non-instanced dungeons
Quote
-The game will have raids and heroic modes for its dungeons as end game content in addition to faction PvP
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports

-The game will also have high end public dungeons


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:46:38 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say combat, class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.  I could talk to you about how Matt Firor had nothing to do with WAR, and everything to do with the original design of RVR, but who cares?  We'll have to wait and see what comes out of actual interviews and in-game footage.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 03, 2012, 07:47:05 PM
Long info dump after the break, taken from GAF:

Quote
-Public dungeons are essentially instances that aren't actually instanced, so anyone can be in them, so imagine a World of Warcraft dungeon that featured everyone on the server in the area instead of just your party
Wow; old is new again. Athough it's mildly depressing they even have to explain the concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 07:48:45 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say combat, class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.  I could talk to you about how Matt Firor had nothing to do with WAR, and everything to do with the original design of RVR, but who cares?  We'll have to wait and see what comes out of actual interviews and in-game footage.
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:54:04 PM
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 08:00:49 PM
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.
That wasn't eSports. No one says that about their epic RvR game unless "epic RvR game" are just words on a page to them that coexist with "balanced PvP for eSports" which are also just words on a page.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 08:03:22 PM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 08:10:45 PM

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.
That wasn't eSports. No one says that about their epic RvR game unless "epic RvR game" are just words on a page to them that coexist with "balanced PvP for eSports" which are also just words on a page.



Those are Game Informer's words - the esports thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MisterNoisy on May 03, 2012, 08:13:38 PM
A team of 250 people are about to drop the world's largest steamer after six years of hard work.  At least the magnitude of this game's failure will give Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 08:14:23 PM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.

Yeah, if you really liked the TES (Skyrim) combat, I don't think I can say anything to sway you.  I thought it was clunky and lame compared to 2001 era DAOC with positional styles and follow up chains and reactionary styles.  Based on the article, TESO is going to have a similar system but much more advanced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 03, 2012, 08:36:23 PM
A team of 250 people are about to drop the world's largest steamer after six years of hard work.  At least the magnitude of this game's failure will give Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.

This... There is no chance of this being a good game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2012, 08:36:52 PM
Legitimately surprised they're going with action-bar combat. So their selling point is going to be...what, the wonderful story/setting of The Elder Scrolls? A PVP focus? Good luck with that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 08:47:22 PM
Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.

It would have to be an incredible stinker to give Bioware Austin any cred. It probably hasn't cost as much or had such a global IP to leech off. I mean Jedi knights versus.... hell, I don't even know what is iconic about elder scrolls... Redguard spell-swords?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 08:54:33 PM
The only iconic thing about TES is the Daedric Lords, imo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 08:56:25 PM
Also, this better be the last time in the history of the world that someone pulls out the DAOC card and says "yeah man, we have {X number of people from DAOC here where X >=1} therefore, we totally GET PvP and our MMO will totally blow you the fuck away, HYPE BABY."

Yeah, it's not like we heard that twice already, once with the actual Mythic team itself. And the second time around with the hollowed out shell of the Mythic team. This is like that one with where the boy cries wolf, and the second time, the people still believe him because ???, and then the third time they still believe him because ???. That was a good fable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
Also, this better be the last time in the history of the world that someone pulls out the DAOC card and says "yeah man, we have {X number of people from DAOC here where X >=1} therefore, we totally GET PvP and our MMO will totally blow you the fuck away, HYPE BABY."

Yeah, it's not like we heard that twice already, once with the actual Mythic team itself. And the second time around with the hollowed out shell of the Mythic team. This is like that one with where the boy cries wolf, and the second time, the people still believe him because ???, and then the third time they still believe him because ???. That was a good fable.

I can't agree with you more, Fiery.  I'm willing to listen to it 1 more time cause Matt Firor had nothing to do with those other games, and he's basically the last guy from the original team to not be involved with a piece of shit. (yet)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 09:28:31 PM
WAR is what made me the MMO cynic I am now. I haven't seen any reason to change so far. Guild Wars 2 better give me a blowjob when it launches and I might turn around.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 03, 2012, 10:05:21 PM
Apparently there is "no aggro mechanics", which I guess means that mobs just attack whoever the fuck they want, which sounds pretty good to me. Personally I'm really tired of the artificiality and predictable of "big dude taunts enemies who refuse to attack anyone else ever." But the rest of it sounds bog standard and almost nothing like Elder Scrolls. Sounds very much like a "standard" MMO first and an Elder Scrolls game second.

And given that the "lore" of Elder Scrolls is basically worthless without the mechanics taking the lore while leaving the mechanics sounds like a bad idea.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 03, 2012, 10:06:01 PM
I know none of you really know me all that well, but I am generally a very optimistic person. I was pumped for stuff like Champions, WAR, Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and even FFXIV before I played the beta and went "oh fuck no" alongside everybody else. I'm generally pretty good at latching onto glimmers of hope and thinking "well, this could still work if they..." when my fourteen years of MMOing should have sent me packing and long after every other skeptic had long since written the games in question off. That's not to say I'll just buy any old thing, though. I know a stinker when I see one, even if it's after everyone else and a week before launch.

I love Elder Scrolls and have been an avid (and sometimes rabid) fan since Daggerfall; I even sunk over 200 hours into Oblivion despite liking next to none of it, solely because it still had that Civilization-like hook to it that just gets me. I love MMOs, diku and non-diku alike. I loved DAoC; it's probably my third favorite MMO of the couple dozen I've played. I even still enjoy PvP, though less than I used to.

Yet there is nothing - nothing whatsoever - about anything I've seen or read or heard about this game that even begins to interest me. I am about as perfect of an example of their target audience as it gets yet it misses the mark on what I would enjoy seeing out of a multiplayer Elder Scrolls by such a wide margin that they may as well have been aiming for Andromeda.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 03, 2012, 11:54:11 PM
Quote
-There will be no player housing
What the....? So where am I supposed to store all my god damn cheeses?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 12:30:11 AM
Apparently there is "no aggro mechanics", which I guess means that mobs just attack whoever the fuck they want, which sounds pretty good to me. Personally I'm really tired of the artificiality and predictable of "big dude taunts enemies who refuse to attack anyone else ever."

If there is combat in the game there will be an aggro mechanic. If it is pick target randomly then there is no possibility of tactics and role specialisation which is viable but a step towards the zerg.

Though given an Elder Scrolls character is generally a heavily armored, high hit point wizard / warrior / priest / archer / rogue maybe it does make sense to just ignore any sort of party mechanic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 04, 2012, 12:37:24 AM
If there is combat in the game there will be an aggro mechanic. If it is pick target randomly then there is no possibility of tactics and role specialisation which is viable but a step towards the zerg.

Real life combat features plenty of tactics and role specialization despite the fact that tanks don't have special taunt abilities that enrage other tanks and blind them to other targets.

Here's a tactic: if an enemy is running over to kill you wizard trip him.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 12:45:56 AM
So constantly be immobilizing and stunning them when they go for a soft target since you can't actually change their focus? That sounds much more fun and would certainly segue naturally into PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 04, 2012, 01:06:13 AM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Is that a recommendation or a warning?  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 04, 2012, 03:47:49 AM
I know none of you really know me all that well, but I am generally a very optimistic person. I was pumped for stuff like Champions, WAR, Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and even FFXIV before I played the beta and went "oh fuck no" alongside everybody else. I'm generally pretty good at latching onto glimmers of hope and thinking "well, this could still work if they..." when my fourteen years of MMOing should have sent me packing and long after every other skeptic had long since written the games in question off. That's not to say I'll just buy any old thing, though. I know a stinker when I see one, even if it's after everyone else and a week before launch.

I love Elder Scrolls and have been an avid (and sometimes rabid) fan since Daggerfall; I even sunk over 200 hours into Oblivion despite liking next to none of it, solely because it still had that Civilization-like hook to it that just gets me. I love MMOs, diku and non-diku alike. I loved DAoC; it's probably my third favorite MMO of the couple dozen I've played. I even still enjoy PvP, though less than I used to.

Yet there is nothing - nothing whatsoever - about anything I've seen or read or heard about this game that even begins to interest me. I am about as perfect of an example of their target audience as it gets yet it misses the mark on what I would enjoy seeing out of a multiplayer Elder Scrolls by such a wide margin that they may as well have been aiming for Andromeda.
To be fair, while I don't play them most of my friends/colleagues who play MMOs thought Age of Conan and Star Trek were pretty good games that could stand on their own after they got some judicious patching. It's too bad that first impressions are everything with MMOs and only WoW has really gotten it right for some reason.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 04, 2012, 03:50:17 AM
Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.
I've found that when it comes to MMORPGs these days, being pessimistic yields a much higher success rate than being optimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 04:53:39 AM
Maybe I felt too let down earlier when I first read the leaks; now I'll just wait to have a more organic picture of the whole thing (along with a gameplay video during the expo summer season, hopefully). It's just that, at first sight, it looks like a messy mixture of stuff put in a cauldron; some elements sound too generic: in my opinion, TOR represented the last "pure" diku model (with some fresh elements here and there, yes), and I hope software houses will start exploring new ground from now on.

And, for my tastes (so it's more of a personal wish), "old is new", like someone mentioned earlier (lol at "public dungeons"), so I hope to see more and more mmos switching toward sandbox skill based titles :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 06:53:31 AM
Don't be fooled. Your first impressions when you heard about the changes to combat will never be wrong.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on May 04, 2012, 07:07:49 AM
Fus-Ro-Dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 07:09:45 AM
Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.
I've found that when it comes to MMORPGs these days, being pessimistic yields a much higher success rate than being optimistic.

Perhaps, and I have been very pessimistic since the whole Vanguard debacle, but honestly, since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.  Especially if you loved DAOC.  I'm at the very least going to be patient and wait for some game play vids and interviews and maybe even a beta before I start to turn pessimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 07:11:59 AM
Official website now online:

http://elderscrollsonline.com


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 07:35:16 AM
WAR is what made me the MMO cynic I am now. I haven't seen any reason to change so far. Guild Wars 2 better give me a blowjob when it launches and I might turn around.
I'm thinking of ways to have the babies of all ArenaNet staff.  ALL OF THEM.  And I'm still cynical about any MMO release.

Stop fucking trying to impersonate WoW "because it's what MMO players know".  Make a good game.  Make your own game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 04, 2012, 08:00:57 AM
Quote
-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs

Meh..


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 08:03:04 AM
Wow, I was checking the general reaction (most of it coming from those who read the leaked GI preview) on some of the most known websites dedicated to MMOs and PC gaming, and...well, I'm not really sure it's what Zenimax Online was expecting. Don't know, maybe the same ones voicing a negative opinion will turn into drooling fans after a couple of "reassuring words" by the lead developers. Even the official boards are pretty negative (but what do you expect from the single-player games fans, used to a sandbox style? I'm not really surprised).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 04, 2012, 08:08:28 AM
Darkfall doesnt have agro mechanics in PvE and it works. The Mobs have decent battle AI, but their agro and patterns are pretty random. The only real "agro" function is that since back attacks do double damage, they tend to turn onpeople whacking them repeatedly there, as a self preservation mechanism.

The randomness of the Mobs actually makes it a bit more interesting in some ways, it really forces you to keep on your toes because the mob can turn on anyone in an instant. The PvE is also more engaging because the game is manual aim, so you actually have to aim your attacks, and friendly fire is on too, so aim carefully...You can even miss heals and heal the mob.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 08:16:31 AM
Teaser (http://kotaku.com/5907648/the-elder-scrolls-online-now-has-a-trailer).

If they're smart, they'll now shut up until a well polished playable demo hits some convention. There is no possible way to please the WoW+Skyrim player. They've set an impossible goal just in this statement alone (or whoever wrote this):

Quote
"It needs to be comfortable for people who are comign in from a typical massively multiplayer game [wish they'd just say WoW] that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."
That person exists, but those two games are almost as far apart on everything as freaking Skyrim and Battlefield. I'm with Lantyssa: make your own game. Considering their source has been a long series of their own game, it's a shame they think the market is a bunch of has-been saved-by-f2p titles and WoW.

Feels like they're pulling a "eh, instead of sequels we'll do ES 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 all together and charge a recurring fee for it!/moneyhats." Maybe they can course correct some of it given the sunk resources vs actual returns on TOR.

Most of that GAF list was stock-MMO. Maybe it'll be good on that merit alone. But I'll manage my skepticism until I get hands at keyboard time with it :)

Four things stuck out at me though from that GAF list:

-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2: Ugh, really? not exactly inspiring here
-There will be no player housing: Hopefully that's an implied "not yet", since, ya know, RPG source had houses and shops and whatnot
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage: bland
-the game is set 1000 years in the past: wtf is it with pre-quelitis. Why are so many afraid to move things forward

The whole section about PvP: don't care, except insofar as my already-gutted RPG will get resources sucked away into PvP. As much love as DAoC BGs get, really small audience there. They'd probably rip off WoW's more simply because a lot more people played them. So, I'm leaning on the eSports side here too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 04, 2012, 08:20:23 AM
My obligatory train wreck prediction loses it's magic when everyone else knows the game will be a steaming pile of shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 08:26:05 AM
I still can't even get over how dumb this is. They aren't even making a TES game! It's nothing like anything we've ever played except for the name. HOW IS ANYBODY STILL THIS STUPID IN THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT???


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 04, 2012, 08:35:58 AM
I have said, and maintain, that you have to be insane to dump lots of money into an MMO now. Have to. I said it after the AoC and WAR debacles. It's only been confirmed to me since then that people have no idea what they're doing. GW2 is probably the last gasp for MMOs for me, at least as a regular player. You have no idea how badly I want TESO to be good but it just won't be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 09:32:02 AM
-the game is set 1000 years in the past: wtf is it with pre-quelitis. Why are so many afraid to move things forward
While I do agree, I don't have a problem with a far-flung prequel.  If it is given its own lore.  TOR upsets me because instead of expanding on the Old Republic games, it feels like the Clone Wars is a few years off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on May 04, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
They are using the HeroEngine.

Seriously - WHY are developers doing this? It's terrible! Bioware sunk how many millions into it and it still runs like shit, looks bland and has unresponsive combat?

Completely don't understand this decision. The guys who make HeroEngine must have the worlds best salespeople behind them.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 04, 2012, 10:16:36 AM
From the HeroEngine page: "FOCUS ON BUILDING YOUR GAME NOT THE TECH"

No! NO! Bad! Bad! Tech good! Tech very good! Just as important as the game!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 04, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
They are using the HeroEngine.

Seriously - WHY are developers doing this? It's terrible! Bioware sunk how many millions into it and it still runs like shit, looks bland and has unresponsive combat?

Completely don't understand this decision. The guys who make HeroEngine must have the worlds best salespeople behind them.

I suspect that it's no coincidence that both Zenimax and Bioware started using the Hero Engine for their MMOs in the same year - 2007. Simutronics must've had a hell of a sales pitch, and by the time the MMO market showed that you can't out-WoW WoW, it was too late to really do an engine switch.

Also, I don't know how kosher it is here, but here (http://imgur.com/a/fO9Ty#5) is the actual Game Informer article the GAF thread's bullet points are taken from.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 10:58:49 AM
I think we are pretty against violating NDAs, but I don't think scooping gamer magazines bothers anybody, considering what they are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 11:15:19 AM
Quote
The reality of network latency and massively multiplayer games prevents The Elder Scrolls Online from following the real-time combat model that has driven the series since its inception

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on May 04, 2012, 11:16:30 AM
The public dungeons fill me with a certain dread. I can just see griefers training the entire dungeon to the zone line or figuring out some other new way to dick with the n00bs. I really loved EQ when they came out with LDoN. "A personal dungeon just for me and my party that no one else can fuck with? A capital idea my good man!" Now I will say that it could be interesting if there's a group/raid pvp element to it. But then it would sound something like what Aion did and while I never played it, I read all the horror stories about it.

Why is it so hard for a company to copy one of the few good things that EQ did? Make pvp level ranged or do what CoH and WAR did (although WAR's implementation was a bug), have level scaling. I was a level 2 in WAR and somehow got thrown into a level 20 BG. I didin't have any good weapons or armor but I was able to land blows and do some damage because the BG scaled me up to the appropriate level (completely by accident of course). Do this and world pvp might actually be fun for everyone instead of having high levels roaming around clubbing the helpless baby seals. I've been on both ends of that stick and frankly it's not satisfying either way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 12:00:11 PM
Quote
The reality of network latency and massively multiplayer games prevents The Elder Scrolls Online from following the real-time combat model that has driven the series since its inception

 :awesome_for_real:

So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 04, 2012, 12:12:59 PM
Quote
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2: Ugh, really? not exactly inspiring here

I still come back to one of my major problems with SWTOR: art direction.  And funny enough, it was the same thing with EQ2.  A really weird kind of photorealism that made terrible faces.  And putting photoreal lions etc. next to fantasy meshed mobs made it all the more odd.  SWTOR was just great if you loved industrial architecture scenes, bad for faces and costumes and anything else.  Hope this will be different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 12:28:41 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

DDO came out in 2006, before this game even began development, and proved that real-time combat in an MMO was possible. TERA does it even better, and proves that latency isn't what is holding back MMO design at this point: it's a serious lack of creativity and an aversion to risk.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on May 04, 2012, 12:43:55 PM
There is nothing about this game that looks interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 12:46:28 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

DDO came out in 2006, before this game even began development, and proved that real-time combat in an MMO was possible. TERA does it even better, and proves that latency isn't what is holding back MMO design at this point: it's a serious lack of creativity and an aversion to risk.

But it doesn't even require creativity. The games were already made. Even if you started this thing back in 2007, you had Oblivion to work off of. In fact it required a completely different approach than anything TES has ever been about to do this. It pisses me off to no end!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 04, 2012, 12:49:21 PM
Seriously - WHY are developers doing this?
Their world building features seem well suited for large projects like this. It was main reason BioWare picked it too, iirc -- the ability to drop multiple teams and content developer types into the zone(s) and just build. I don't know if the claim of "there’s never been anything like it!" is accurate anymore, but it quite likely was when they were starting work on this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 02:15:03 PM
Here is the first, "official" screenshot, released on Game Informer:


Quote
What’s going on here?
In this image, you can see a couple player characters battling some Storm Atronachs. Storm Atronach are a species of daedra (divine creatures that come from magical dimensions) that are constructed from stone and held together by magic. The most powerful of all the atronachs, Storm Atronach are immune to normal weapons and shock attacks, are resistant to poisons, and can reflect spells back at their caster.

Is that all?
Behind the battle is a series of daedric ruins. These great towers were built long ago by an ancient race of people, but they’re not the only landmarks players will discover throughout their journey. As players travel through Skyrim, Morrowind, Cyrodiil, and the rest of Tamriel they will encounter various dwarven ruins, ancient nordic tombs, decayed dwemer buildings, and many other ancient locales, some of which players may have discovered in previous Elder Scrolls games.

I still want more!
We know you do, but that’s all for today. If you missed it, Elder Scrolls Online’s first teaser trailer released earlier today, and check back next week for more exclusive Elder Scrolls content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on May 04, 2012, 03:01:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Erseq.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NPh0v.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/wV0Gu.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/kOJCL.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/uYGSS.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 03:03:53 PM
Ok, I'm having quite a gloomy evening for personal reasons, but you actually made me laugh with that  :grin: :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 04, 2012, 03:07:47 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 03:08:04 PM
Yea just saw that on Kotaku. Will say again: they need to shut up for awhile. Though of course, this isn't them actively talking. It's more the longtail of everyone parsing that article.

I can't say I blame Zenimax in their 2006/2007 decision to greenlight this. Subs are more profitable over time than one offs. And yes, just announcing a new MMO doesn't automatically mean you're announcing you're going to beat WoW. The size of the business is really every other game that isn't #1, the same for every genre. So maybe they're being responsible with their expectations.

But, they really do seem off the mark. Skyrim has evolved into full on Second Life mode at this point, and the ES series itself is a brand both in the world and in its (usually kinda experimental) game mechanics. You cannot outright ignore your core, or you're going to get the backlash that any label slap deserves, thus diluting your brand and its own future.

Maybe they don't care? Maybe I'm overthinking the value of the ES franchise and the size of the core.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 04, 2012, 03:14:19 PM
Quote
-There will be no player housing
What the....? So where am I supposed to store all my god damn cheeses?

Cheese wheel stacking. And, if you create the correct structures, it will spawn different cheesy adventures for your to experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 03:21:24 PM
Maybe I'm overthinking the value of the ES franchise and the size of the core.

Skyrim is still the fifth or sixth best selling game on Steam most days, at $60.00, six months after it's release.  It's even beating out CoD.  I don't know of another PC franchise that has those kinds of legs, though on consoles it may be a different story.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
Dear lord it just keeps getting worse. That screenshot!  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 03:37:59 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.

Did you read the article?  They specifically state that they are not trinity focused - any 5 characters with appropriate level/gear should be able to clear group content.  I think people need to take a step back and wait for more info.  So many assumptions being thrown around.  I can list at least 10 ways the article said the game will be different than WOW, but people are still calling it a WOW clone?  It lists more differences than GW2 does, but GW2 is the second coming of Jesus?

We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 03:40:16 PM
Welcome to F13, bitch  :pedobear:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 04, 2012, 03:48:13 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.

Did you read the article?  They specifically state that they are not trinity focused - any 5 characters with appropriate level/gear should be able to clear group content.  I think people need to take a step back and wait for more info.  So many assumptions being thrown around.  I can list at least 10 ways the article said the game will be different than WOW, but people are still calling it a WOW clone?  It lists more differences than GW2 does, but GW2 is the second coming of Jesus?

We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.

Meh, I can literally tell by that screenshot that this game is going to be disappointing.

These are the kinds of images Bethesda tends to market the Elder Scrolls games with.

Somewhat ironically, those inspire a much more "MMO" feeling in me than the actual MMO one, which inspires in me.... nothing... 

Just the screenshot choice alone tells me all I need to know.

I'm completely aware I may, several years and dozens of pages later in this thread, totally take this back, but fuck it it isn't f13 without doomcasting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 03:50:52 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Also, I can list 10 ways it's exactly like WoW.

1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style
5 - Pitiful Attempt at E-Sport PvP
6 - Button Mashing Combat
7 - Don't Stand in the Fire!
8 - WoW Mechanics with TES style!
9 - Heroic modes!
10 - Fucking elves!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 03:52:29 PM
10 - Fucking elves!
Is that a mini-game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 03:55:26 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.

General impressions for TERA PvP seem to be that it works well, but there just isn't much structure in the game yet to support it (battlegrounds, etc). Regardless, the latency/"MMO" excuse for realtime action combat is a wash. You can also see DCUO for another example of realtime action combat that works fine for PvP in an MMO.

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Even the Gameinformer PR-BJ article that the quote is from acknowledges that realtime combat is "the model that has driven the series since its inception".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 03:58:28 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Also, I can list 10 ways it's exactly like WoW.

1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style
5 - Pitiful Attempt at E-Sport PvP
6 - Button Mashing Combat
7 - Don't Stand in the Fire!
8 - WoW Mechanics with TES style!
9 - Heroic modes!
10 - Fucking elves!

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.
5 - I don't like the sound of e-sport options either, but I'm hopeful that is just the Game Informer writer trying to sound hip.  Maybe they just said, "yeah, we'll have arenas too, with a leaderboard if people don't like large pvp battles."
6 - We'll have to wait and see it played before we can really call it button mashing, won't we?
7 - You saw a raid?
8 - Uh again, gonna have to wait and see.
9 - Extra content at top level?  Not sure why you hate this idea.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 04:07:27 PM

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.
[snip...]
1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.

This is the problem.  Having classes and hotkey combat is not a staple of the fantasy genre, it's a trait of WoW and DIKU type MMOs specifically, and it's become so prevalent in the MMO genre that people forget that you can even do it any other way.  It is entirely possible to do a fantasy game without using classes, without using hotkeys or raids.  See, oh, just to pick a game at random, Skyrim, for example.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 04:15:10 PM

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.

This is the problem.  Having classes and hotkey combat is not a staple of the fantasy genre, it's a trait of WoW and DIKU type MMOs specifically, and it's become so prevalent in the MMO genre that people forget that you can even do it any other way.  It is entirely possible to do a fantasy game without using classes, without using hotkeys or raids.  See, oh, just to pick a game at random, Skyrim, for example.

Classes were around before DIKU.  D&D for instance.  I know you don't have to have classes, and I do understand that some of you would rather have the old skill system.  I understand your beef that this isn't 'like Skyrim' also.  I just think we should all take a step back and wait for some more details before we decide how mad we are.  Maybe they have brilliantly designed classes that are really fun to play.  Maybe in action the game makes TERA's warrior dodge gimmick seem like a snore fest.

Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 04:17:56 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 04:19:14 PM
1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.
5 - I don't like the sound of e-sport options either, but I'm hopeful that is just the Game Informer writer trying to sound hip.  Maybe they just said, "yeah, we'll have arenas too, with a leaderboard if people don't like large pvp battles."
6 - We'll have to wait and see it played before we can really call it button mashing, won't we?
7 - You saw a raid?
8 - Uh again, gonna have to wait and see.
9 - Extra content at top level?  Not sure why you hate this idea.

Ah so it's your turn then.

If we took a "wait and see" attitude, we wouldn't bother posting on forums.

The hate isn't about "new MMO". There's been scores of those. It's more that they're taking a brand we've all loved as a specifically non-MMO game and are slapping it on an MMO.

Yes, there's no proof and we'll wait for demos and maybe love it and all that shit. Been doing that since we were arguing whether Lineage 1 was a valid comparison to UO  :awesome_for_real:

But, that article has said all the same things so many other fantasy MMOs have said that it's hard to see this as anything other than Zenimax taking Bethesda's brand and slapping it on a knockoff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2012, 04:19:43 PM
Bethesda has certainly not proved they can make a balanced skill system in their prior games; perhaps they are aware of this and that is why they're going with classes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 04:23:21 PM
Bethesda has certainly...

Bioware AUSTIN Err...Zenimax Online Studios


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 04:24:13 PM
Bethesda has certainly not proved they can make a balanced skill system in their prior games; perhaps they are aware of this and that is why they're going with classes.

That's actually a very good point.  Let's be real:  Skyrim was a joke if you trained certain skills.
To answer an earlier post, I'm pretty sure even Arena was skill based.  I played it and I can remember wandering the countrside shooting fireballs at things to level up that skill.  Pretty sure it was that game anyway.  I bet Firor will be asked why they didn't go this route in an interview soon, and we'll all find out.  Hopefully it wasn't just an arbitrary decision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 04:29:04 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?

They've beein in TES before, yeah.  Daggerfall + Morrowind + Oblivion all had "classes" that defined which skills were major skills (which levelled up faster and determined your overall level gains) but they were pretty loose since you could still do just about everything with every character if you wanted, or design your own custom class.  The original Arena had more D&D type, hard coded classes and abilities, and didn't use the skills system that the later games did (your class defined the gear you could equip, the spells you could cast, and special abilities like crit damage, and you couldn't change any of that).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 04, 2012, 04:36:16 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Yes, because the Elder Scrolls games are widely beloved for their RvR, and not their real time combat and immersion and freewheeling world rules systems.

....

Gonna repeat what someone else said before: Make your own game. Making an Elder Scrolls MMO? Start with what is exciting about an Elder Scrolls MMO?. You don't START with a list of by the numbers bullet points, and hammer and beat up your brand to fit them. That's exactly what TOR did, and that's what Warhammer did, and it's just as stupid here. Why the fuck, when making a TES online game, is the first bullet point "Gotta have dat mass PvP! Spirit of the franchise right there, baby!"

Just because you personally still get super excited anytime someone pulls out the DAOC card, doesn't mean every franchise should be beaten into a DAOC shaped mold and baked in the oven. I mean apart from anything else, their lust for Camelot already has them mangling the shit out of the lore to beat the races into place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 04:46:31 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?

They've beein in TES before, yeah.  Daggerfall + Morrowind + Oblivion all had "classes" that defined which skills were major skills (which levelled up faster and determined your overall level gains) but they were pretty lose since you could still do just about everything with every character if you wanted, or design your own custom class.  The original Arena had more D&D type, hard coded classes and abilities, and didn't use the skills system that the later games did (your class defined the gear you could equip, the spells you could cast, and special abilities like crit damage, and you couldn't change any of that).
Aah, thanks for the summary. Now that you mention it I vaguely remember the major/minor thing from Oblivion although I had a stronger memory of having a sneaky tank-mage which is why I though it was classless. But as already said, maybe they thought everyone would make something like that and it would be a nightmare to balance and we'd end up with Champions Online 2  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 04, 2012, 04:57:20 PM
Guys, when you run an MMO latency is magically 10 times worse than when you run an FPS, RTS, MOBA or anything else.

It's simple physics. I would explain it but it's so obvious it would be a waste of time.

As far as "I can name 10 ways this is not like WoW"....there are people who can name 10 ways that SWTOR is not like WoW, or 10 ways that Sony Smash Brothers is totally not Smash Brothers. It's pretty clear from their high level choices that the game is more WoW than Elder Scrolls. Camera - WoW. Combat - WoW. Levelling - WoW. If you think of basically every mechanic that makes an Elder Scrolls game an Elder Scrolls game this game lacks it.

It's like Elder Scrolls only with hotbar-based not-really-realtime combat, third person camera, classes instead of skill levelling...so basically not Elder Scrolls at all. It seems to me that if you read the list of features and left out mention of Elder Scrolls proper names you would never guess it was a Scrolls game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2012, 05:20:21 PM
Go to a town, kill ten somethings, collect ten somethings from the ground, get the asses of ten somethings, get the breadcrumb quest to the next town, repeat to max level.  Run regular dungeons until you achieve shoulders big enough to run hard mode dungeons, run those until you look ridiculous enough to handle raids, now run those until you earn the right to run hard mode raids, bitch about lack of content.  Daily quests, faction/rep grinding.  Battlegrounds --> pvp ranks --> pvp gear --> pwn noobs.  Tacked on crafting that is either completely useless or a must have advantage for the raiders/pvpers, likely both depending on whether you win the crafting skill lotto or not.  I truly hope i am wrong about any of this, but they started making this game in 07 right? there is no way they are making anything else and it will bomb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 05:57:18 PM
Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.

Considering when you registered and what kind of odd hard-on you have for the game, AND what your first post was...

I'd say it's likely you're a mole anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 04, 2012, 06:01:10 PM
They should at least have a skill system like AC's, that approximates TES' skill system.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Jherad on May 04, 2012, 06:35:52 PM
I cannot overstate my complete lack of enthusiasm for this.

Excited then disappointed in the space of about 10 minutes.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.

Considering when you registered and what kind of odd hard-on you have for the game, AND what your first post was...

I'd say it's likely you're a mole anyway.

I wish I was a mole, I could get some inside info and maybe get into beta.  I just signed up when the rumors of this leak came out on Tom's last month, cause I wanted to talk about it.  I've literally lurked around this forums since the Vanguard development days.  I was at the gym thinking about this thread, and I think I had an epiphany, though:

Many of you are mad cause you love TES.  I'll be honest, I've considered myself a fan of TES, but am I really?  I liked Arena and Daggerfall, but I think that's because I wasn't into MMO games back then (was EQ even out yet?) but, really, Morrowind was kinda a 'meh' for me.  Oblivion and Skyrim got old to me after a few hours.  I appreciated what they were trying to do, but they weren't near as fun for me as an MMO.

So, being honest, I can say that the reason I think I'm hopeful and excited about this game has very little to do with TES and a lot to do with the idea that a new game with a decent budget has come out and it seems to have a LOT of what made me love DAOC in it.  No combat like Skyrim? I don't give a shit.  The factions don't make sense?  Doesn't bother me in the least.  Graphics look different?  Don't care.

What I do care about:  

-No holy trinity.
-Visceral combat with style chains, blocks, sprint (sounds like DAOC 2 to me)  
-Open world persistent PVP area with many different types of objectives.  
-No quest hubs - seriously, this killed TERA for me.  
-PVP endgame designed from the start (not tacked on like retarded Ilum)
-Open dungeons - yes I miss Guk, and please, please let there be one in the PVP zone - Hello Darkness Falls?
-No skill bloat - from the article they want 'every skill to be meaningful' and you have to choose a few to have active at a time.
-Decent graphics (I know it's personal, but I liked the way the screenshots looked)

Anyway, I think I could come up with more, but I'm hoping more material will get revealed soon and I won't have to.

TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 04, 2012, 06:59:56 PM
The problem isn't that this game looks line a clone of WoW, it's that it looks like generic fantasy MMO #57, with the Elder Scrolls title + lore slapped on top. Their listed features so far read out like the most bland, generic MMO you could possibly make, and sounds nothing at all like something belonging in the Elder Scrolls universe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Jherad on May 04, 2012, 07:14:04 PM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

I doubt you're alone, but they called it Elder Scrolls Online, and are clearly trying to appeal to fans of the franchise (whilst abandoning the things that define that franchise). That right there is setting it up for failure on an epic scale. The backlash (and negative PR) from the diehard TES fans is going to be spectacular.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 04, 2012, 08:21:19 PM
Corporate greed and fossils like Firor will continue to hold back the industry for years to come. Are consumers finally growing tired of repurchasing what's essentially the same game they have been playing since the 90s several times each year? I can only hope this one fails on an epic scale, and then serves as a warning to developers that try to follow the same path in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 08:32:48 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

Of course not, the modern electrical and optical signals are obviously much faster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 04, 2012, 08:37:56 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?
Err... TERA is open world PVP on the PVP servers. Meaning yes, they do expect 200+ free for alls to break out in the same area, potentially.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 08:43:33 PM
I'm about ready to go back to MUDS.  Not like much has friggin' changed.

(Thank you GW2 for giving me something to tickle my Explorer fancy.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 04, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Ok, I'm having quite a gloomy evening for personal reasons, but you actually made me laugh with that  :grin: :grin:

Well struck Nonentity  +:grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

If they'd named it DAOC2, I doubt any of us would feel betrayed. The problem is that when they did this with WAR, it didn't work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 04, 2012, 10:19:07 PM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

If they'd named it DAOC2, I doubt any of us would feel betrayed. The problem is that when they did this with WAR, it didn't work.

This. DAOC2? sounds grand. DAOC2 masquerading as TESO? er. what?

Honestly? TESO should be all of the maps they've produced in one setting, with all sorts of random crap inhabiting every nook and cranny. Make it big. No, even bigger. Seriously. Make it skill based. Balance? F that. Allow balance to be emergent based on the rock / paper / scissor nature of heavy / light / cloth armor and what those allow you to do. Quests? More emergence based on NPC's reacting to what the mob's are doing.  In game guild factions? You can belong to one and that creates interaction possibilities. Mages Guild hates the thieves Guild who hates the Fighters guild and every hates the damn Brotherhood. Eternal war between Daedric and Divine factions. Get infected by lycanthropy or vampirism? fine. You're now PVP to everyone. Get caught stealing on a thieves quest? PVP+ till you die or escape. End game? fuck you. The end game is you've acquired mastery of one skill. Now go do shit. train other players. Clear out a Vampire warren. Whatever. If you want to raid dungeon instances go play something else.

In other words a big assed sandbox. would it succeed? No cue. But at least it would be different. And feel like a TES game.

What they proposed? None of the above.

Meh. Whatever. MMO's are boring anyway. Someone else go kill the rats.

/nerdrage


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on May 04, 2012, 11:33:10 PM
I can only hope this one fails on an epic scale, and then serves as a warning to developers that try to follow the same path in the future.

Don't we have SWOR for that already, or hasn't it imploded enough yet to put up the "beware, toxicly stale ideas here!"-sign up?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2012, 12:25:42 AM

-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs
-Visually it looks like other Hero Engine MMOs like SWTOR
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage
-"It needs to be comfortable for people who are comign in from a typical massively multiplayer game that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."
-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."
-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches
-The game will have raids and heroic modes for its dungeons as end game content in addition to faction PvP
-Public dungeons are essentially instances that aren't actually instanced, so anyone can be in them, so imagine a World of Warcraft dungeon that featured everyone on the server in the area instead of just your party
-There are standard instanced dungeons as well
-The combat is based around a stamina bar which you can use to sprint, block, interrupt, and break incapacitating effects
-Blocking is the primary focus of these abilities, and can do things like stopping the secondary effects of attacks such as an ice spell slowing you
-Stamina also applies to PvP, so stamina management (and wearing down your enemy's stamina) is important, as your crowd control abilities might be on a long cooldown, and if you use them before the enemy player runs out of stamina, they will probably just block the effect
-ZeniMax feels that having the stamina bar will help break down the Holy Trinity as stamina allows you to do things like tank
-However, healing is still a big part of the game

Interest killed, mainly due to the bolded bits.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 05, 2012, 05:22:54 AM
Seriously. Make it skill based. Balance? F that. Allow balance to be emergent based on the rock / paper / scissor nature of heavy / light / cloth armor and what those allow you to do.

Skyrim with respecs.  Combine with aggressive patching for massive balance issues.  Launch it on all platforms.  Sleep on a bed stuffed with dollar bills.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 07:25:00 AM
Don't we have SWOR for that already, or hasn't it imploded enough yet to put up the "beware, toxicly stale ideas here!"-sign up?

I was hating that game before it was cool to hate it. Of course nobody wanted to hear anything negative about that game since it was "FUCKIN BIOWARE DUDE".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 07:40:30 AM
Interest killed, mainly due to the bolded bits.

I would be forced to bold the entire list so there's no point. They should really fire everyone responsible for the information released so far.  Proper PR and strategically missing bits of information would have most people swooning over this turd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 05, 2012, 08:07:02 AM
Many of you are mad cause you love TES.  

Not mad at all and don't even like TES based on my Skyrim experience.

I'm settling in for the near-inevitable car crash.

Why is TESO set up for such problems? Because:

1) Skyrim worked because it was basically a big MMO world set up for one player. Every quest giver was just waiting for you, the Dragonborn / Listener / Head of Thieves Guild / Bard / Head Companion etc etc to come along and deliver their mail. This made a lot of players feel special. When there is a world full of players doing the same thing, running the same dungeons at the same time, it is going to be a lot less special.

2) Yeah, the mechanics sound weak right now. And that's because...

3) Development of this game started in 2007 (according to the above information) which is before a lot of things changed in the MMO industry. Sub-based titles are now going F2P to keep revenue up. SWOR launched with a bang and now looks to be in a hard decline. Plus back in 2007 there was still the thought that you could out-WoW if only you did <insert pet hypothesis>. Lots of titles have tried and none have succeeded in coming within even the same vague region of WoW's popularity, no matter what they did.

4) Matt Firor means nothing to me. Even if he personally coded every line of DAOC and launched it himself, it would still mean very little because MMO developers are almost guaranteed to fall over with their second attempt at a MMO, at least in the AAA space. About the only two I can think of who didn't are Scott Hartsman (EQ2 enhancement role to RIFT) and the former devs of Shadowbane who went on to develop Wizard 101.

5) DAOC's PvP is famous for its own issues (e.g. overpowered classes, the two strongest sides teaming up to beat up the smallest third side and steal all their relics) and that was back in a time when players were more accepting of those problems.

6) I've got no interest in DAOC either, and TESO will not be DAOC 2. Or even the version of DAOC that you liked the best, before whichever expansions / patches you thought ruined the game.

7) PC players are used to modding TES games until they get them to a point that they are happy with. Unless TESO is going to allow that kind of player involvement - and they aren't - then PC players will generally be forced to play TESO as the developers want them to play it. This is going to make the mod community unhappy.

8) My Skyrim experience was a lot of sneaking and ranged arrow attacks that one- or two-shot my targets. I don't think TESO is going to allow that under a DIKU-based title because then it makes melee combat skills completely redundant.

9) We've heard very similar promises before and they failed to deliver on them. I'm not expecting it to be different this time.

10) The TES lore (as shown in Skyrim) is incredibly bland. Interesting lore can get me into reading about a game, and TES lacks that.

I could keep coming up with reasons, but this is why I have little to no interest in TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 05, 2012, 08:20:50 AM
I'm almost always optimistic at the release of a new MMO, but not this time. Making it a MMO already makes it completely unlike a TES game.  It might be a great MMO, but the gameplay will be unrecognizable to a TES player.

I'm not doomcasting, but it would be easier to shove an ironing board up a rhino's ass.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2012, 09:06:48 AM
I'm doomcasting. Because they aren't making a TES game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2012, 09:08:26 AM
They really should have named this something else. I've been a pretty big TES fan since Morrowind, and I'm also a big MMO fan, yet I have zero interest in this because it seems to be taking the worst of both worlds. Here's my list of "features" that kill my interest:
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage
-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."
-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches
-The combat is based around a stamina bar which you can use to sprint, block, interrupt, and break incapacitating effects
-Blocking is the primary focus of these abilities, and can do things like stopping the secondary effects of attacks such as an ice spell slowing you
-ZeniMax feels that having the stamina bar will help break down the Holy Trinity as stamina allows you to do things like tank
-However, healing is still a big part of the game
Also:
-Lolz srs PVP/RVR gaem gaiz!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 05, 2012, 09:18:17 AM
I have zero interest in this because it seems to be taking the worst of both worlds.

This pretty much sums it up. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2012, 09:40:27 AM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever. A second look, maybe. Faith? Fuck a bunch of that. The history of MMO's is littered with shitpiles, bug-infested creaking wallet-sucking eye-gouging monstrosities that take your pretty faith and skullfuck it with the 16 Tentacles of Rapine.

MMO's are the playgrounds of little-minded smelly geeks who get moist at the thought of Gibson's Matrix and a sense of god-domain arrogance that their "Vision" can create a world that deserves a $15/month subscription fee. They are entirely too complex a creation for the level of sheer incompetence the games industry thrives on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 11:03:08 AM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever. A second look, maybe. Faith? Fuck a bunch of that. The history of MMO's is littered with shitpiles, bug-infested creaking wallet-sucking eye-gouging monstrosities that take your pretty faith and skullfuck it with the 16 Tentacles of Rapine.

MMO's are the playgrounds of little-minded smelly geeks who get moist at the thought of Gibson's Matrix and a sense of god-domain arrogance that their "Vision" can create a world that deserves a $15/month subscription fee. They are entirely too complex a creation for the level of sheer incompetence the games industry thrives on.

I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.  I haven't spent hundreds (thousands) of hours in MMOs over the last 12 years or so because I was having a terrible time.  I like them.  Yeah, I get frustrated with design decisions, but if there are really bad (SWTOR) I just don't stick around.  Some have kept me busy off and on for years.  I really don't have any hate for any of the devs, even Brad M.  Matt Firor has had nothing to do with those 'shitpiles' you are referring to - he went from early DAOC to working on this game.  I'm gonna see how it turns out before I start freaking out, like many people are doing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 05, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.

Yeah, if you really liked the TES (Skyrim) combat, I don't think I can say anything to sway you.  I thought it was clunky and lame compared to 2001 era DAOC with positional styles and follow up chains and reactionary styles.  Based on the article, TESO is going to have a similar system but much more advanced.

You thought live action combat was... clunky and lame compared to... DIKU hotbar combat... what is this, i don't even...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 05, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.  I haven't spent hundreds (thousands) of hours in MMOs over the last 12 years or so because I was having a terrible time.  I like them.  Yeah, I get frustrated with design decisions, but if there are really bad (SWTOR) I just don't stick around.  Some have kept me busy off and on for years.  I really don't have any hate for any of the devs, even Brad M.  Matt Firor has had nothing to do with those 'shitpiles' you are referring to - he went from early DAOC to working on this game.  I'm gonna see how it turns out before I start freaking out, like many people are doing.
And maybe, if they'd taken the name "daoc2" instead of "elder scrolls online", there'd be less nerdrage?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2012, 12:05:41 PM
I thought they trained paid shilles to post a few non-game related posts before going into forums with the innocent questions and cheer leading?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on May 05, 2012, 12:36:40 PM
Maybe it's Mr. Bloodworth's alt?  :grin:

As for a TES MMO, it's just a bad idea in general, and even more so trying to shoehorn it into a diku based MMO.  It's like they took a look at all the things that people enjoy about the TES games, and decided to do the opposite.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 12:47:06 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

And please with the shill comments.  I wish.  I'm a damn middle school teacher - I could use some extra money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 05, 2012, 12:55:15 PM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool? 

Entirely probable.

But seriously, the reason this is getting such a strong reaction is because this is taking a very unique series that many of us legitimately love and basically making it look generic and uninteresting.  If this game was called "New MMO from Unknown Company with Original IP" it wouldn't have been met with anger here, but indifference.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 05, 2012, 01:29:48 PM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

I don't think it looks cool, the only thing that's been revealed so far is very high level conceptual stuff which is vague and unsubstatiated and a screenshot that radiates meh.  I'm not getting tight in the pants about a WoW clone just because the dev says it won't have quest hubs or something, that's a feature that's going to be a feather on top of the mountain of implemetation questions we know nothing about yet as far as I can tell.  This stuff can go either way, could be decent, could suck, who knows.

The only thing we DO know for certain, from what they're saying, is that this game has almost nothing to do with TES, which is why I, at least, am annoyed.

I can appreciate that you have faith in this Firor guy, but I don't know him from Adam, so I'm not going to base my opinion of the game on his involvement.

If, at some point in the future, they announce something substantial that I find interesting, I'm more than willing to revise my opinion, but at this point, all I'm seeing is either annoying or "answer unclear, ask again later" stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2012, 01:32:00 PM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever.

I'd buy anything the Rift devs put out, they earned plenty of faith from me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 02:38:21 PM
I'd buy anything the Rift devs put out, they earned plenty of faith from me.

Faith that they can make another mediocre game that loses over half of its subscribers in less than a year?  You can tell how well a game is doing by the number of special offers they send to your inbox each month.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2012, 04:47:07 PM
Mediocre compared to what? Rift is pretty much the best mmo currently live.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 05, 2012, 04:55:03 PM
Shit, I'll tell you right now that Rift is probably the healthiest of all the non-WoW games in terms of cost to sub ratio. Trion's going to last forever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 05, 2012, 05:36:54 PM
Rift is actually gaining subs right now if my web traffic is any sign.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 05, 2012, 06:10:14 PM
As someone who re-subbed to Rift a couple of days ago I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Don't get all butthurt because we don't agree with you. Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all. If $300 gajillion and VO acting can't make a better gaming experience to action bar combat, and WoW itself can't stop tripping over it's own dick, exactly why should we be excited about seeing it AGAIN?

Did you not read in the article itself how many times they essentially apologized for the combat? They are already making excuses in a fucking preview. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: caladein on May 05, 2012, 07:27:50 PM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all.

I think you're mistaken.  *points at GW2 subforum*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 07:45:42 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Don't get all butthurt because we don't agree with you. Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all. If $300 gajillion and VO acting can't make a better gaming experience to action bar combat, and WoW itself can't stop tripping over it's own dick, exactly why should we be excited about seeing it AGAIN?

Did you not read in the article itself how many times they essentially apologized for the combat? They are already making excuses in a fucking preview. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.

Yeah, and I'll be honest - the 4 or 5 times that guy who wrote the article, Adam Biessener, brought up comparisons to WoW, I shuddered.  I'm just hoping that he did that because his thought train was something like, "WoW is huge, and all my readers know WoW, I'll base comparisons on that game."  I really want to see some official verbage and some gameplay footage.  When is E3 again?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 05, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all.

I don't know why you would do that. Pretty much all the information out of SWTOR development gave the same vibes as this press release.

"Don't really understand this whole MMO thing, but think we'd look good in money-hats".

Bioware believed their skill in story telling and IP was enough. This game seems to believe their IP is enough, which is pretty hilarious. And both believed they could pretty much get away with "same again" in terms of gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 05, 2012, 11:30:43 PM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Hi! You apparently missed my post a few pages ago wherein I specifically mentioned I wasn't hella jaded, even though I have every reason to be. So no, you're not alone.

I think, judging by what's been shown and mentioned, TESO looks terrible from the basic, conceptual level. It's another "me too" MMO that appears to be mixing Guild Wars with TBC-era WoW to make the game that isn't remotely close to what anyone who's clamored for a multiplayer Elder Scrolls for the past ten years has asked for. You're only excited about it because you're wanting DAoC Done Right™ without the first damn being given about what franchise has to be shoehorned around that concept. If not for Firor, you probably wouldn't even be in this thread.

Hell, I can virtually guarantee you that the old "three faction" magic bullet is going to be an abject failure from the get-go when you have race selection limited by faction when one of the three factions has both Nords and Dunmer, two of the most popular races in the entire franchise because of the high-profile games centered around their homelands and cultures. Not to mention another faction has the Altmer and Bosmer, which are two of the most reviled races in the series, and that was before Skyrim basically turned the Altmer into a nation of fascist warmongers.

It'll probably look more like a two-faction game by the time it's said and done.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 05, 2012, 11:49:50 PM
The whole '3 faction magic bullet' thing is bullshit anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2012, 12:13:14 AM
I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.

I actually have, thank you very much. The last MMO I paid for and played regularly was Lord of the Rings Online. I've played EQ2 and AOC since they went F2P, and I knew almost 2 years ago that SWTOR was never going to be worth a damn and my 30 minutes with the free trial only confirmed it. I still have hope that future MMO's won't suck - but outside of GW2, I don't see anything even being worth my time. This one really isn't.

As for Matt Firor, he worked on EQ1 and then DAoC, right? And as you say, he wasn't a huge part of DAoC's success. So why do you keep throwing his name around? He has no real resume to speak of.

I'm not freaking out, I'm saying that the list of features detailing what the game will be like sounds horribly, terribly generic, and all too similar to WoW with the only hook or differentiator being a setting whose previous games have been the exact opposite of what this game seems to be promising.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 06, 2012, 02:22:35 AM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR
Some of us didn't. :smug:

(And then we got yelled at by the hivemind)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 06, 2012, 04:28:42 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on May 06, 2012, 06:24:39 AM
2.1) be a true visionary and realize that the game isn't going to be all that

7) cry about how the game ruined your innocence and you'll never fall in love again
7.1) crow about 'how you knew but no one would listen', call yourself Cassandra, start cross-dressing


...


ok, it kind of went off the rails at the Cassandra part, but up till then it was accurate


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 06:55:45 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain

I'm usually very lonely in that camp, at least until stage 6 begins. Until then you are just a troll because you aren't on the bandwagon with everyone else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 06, 2012, 06:55:49 AM
Hey, I still think SWTOR is fun...as a leveling experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 07:25:12 AM
Mediocre compared to what? Rift is pretty much the best mmo currently live.

So good that it's subforum sits in the graveyard with very little activity since last year? RIFT suffers from the same problems as TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 06, 2012, 07:40:18 AM
Its funny, I recall Morrowind being slated to be a MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 06, 2012, 07:54:55 AM
I'm about ready to go back to MUDS.  Not like much has friggin' changed.

(Thank you GW2 for giving me something to tickle my Explorer fancy.)

When you post things like this, you make me want to buy GW2, which I had decided not to buy.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 06, 2012, 08:06:01 AM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

And please with the shill comments.  I wish.  I'm a damn middle school teacher - I could use some extra money.

No, I'm cautiously looking forward to this as well. I have played only Oblivion of TES. Mostly played the first part of the game over and over because I didn't like how my characters were progressing. (I vaguely recall trying to craft and having that affect the strength of my enemies, or something.)

I thought Oblivion was a very pretty world, and would make a nice mmo setting.

This has some potential to scratch some of my gaming itches. I'll wait to see when the beta rolls around, as every game's promises change a great deal when it's still a year or more out.

(Don't let yourself be bothered overly much by the overly cynical of F13. Former optimists make the worst cynics ever.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 06, 2012, 09:01:32 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain

I'm usually very lonely in that camp, at least until stage 6 begins. Until then you are just a troll because you aren't on the bandwagon with everyone else.

You're very brave, standing alone yelling at clouds.  How's that onion on your belt?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 10:45:08 AM
Just imagine how things would have turned out if all games had evolved like MMOs. (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7682/mnmm.png)




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 06, 2012, 01:51:08 PM
If you guys aren't tired of the 'angry hitler' meme and can use a laugh, I thought this was funny and on topic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKTj7SITUZo


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 06, 2012, 02:08:34 PM
Oh trust me, we are tired of the "angry hitler" meme. Or at least I am.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 12:57:00 AM
.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 01:05:05 AM
Go to a town, kill ten somethings, collect ten somethings from the ground, get the asses of ten somethings, get the breadcrumb quest to the next town, repeat to max level.  Run regular dungeons until you achieve shoulders big enough to run hard mode dungeons, run those until you look ridiculous enough to handle raids, now run those until you earn the right to run hard mode raids, bitch about lack of content.  Daily quests, faction/rep grinding.  Battlegrounds --> pvp ranks --> pvp gear --> pwn noobs.  Tacked on crafting that is either completely useless or a must have advantage for the raiders/pvpers, likely both depending on whether you win the crafting skill lotto or not.  I truly hope i am wrong about any of this, but they started making this game in 07 right? there is no way they are making anything else and it will bomb.

I must say, dear friend. This theoretical game you're describing sounds just right for me. If only someone would make something like this, I'd play it in an instant! When does TESO launch?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 07, 2012, 01:09:35 AM
Are we not spoilering NSFW images now?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 02:13:04 AM
I took that one from Edge magazine, and it may as well be 8-bit for all it's fidelity, but point taken.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 07, 2012, 03:21:24 AM
Its funny, I recall Morrowind being slated to be a MMO.
Quote
(qK) (Mesmerist) Will there be multiplayer in Morrowind?
(qK) AND in relation
(qK) (S_A_M[Gamekapocs]) How can we play over the net? Through an existing system (bnet, zone, ..), your own servers, (qK) or only TCP/IP? Or anyone can install a program to his server, like quake or UT?

(KenRolston) Nope.
(todd[Bethesda]) Sure.
(todd[Bethesda]) Oops. I mean no.
(KenRolston) You LIAR!
* GT_WormGod snickers
(Pete) No. Not on release, not three months after, no no no

(Chris) Any plans for multiplayer as an add-on? :)

(todd[Bethesda]) Sure.
(todd[Bethesda]) Oops I mean no.
(GT_WormGod) only in a rerun
(KenRolston) Oh, what a liar he is.
(Maverique) he smiles so innocently tho
(todd[Bethesda]) Already done. it's a secret. We have hotseat play. One person moves, while the other turns...all on the same computer!
(KenRolston) We ARE doing a MMORPG. We just are eliminating all the tiresome other players.
(KenRolston) We don't want to play with Nude4Satan.
(GT_WormGod) um, thanks Ken
(todd[Bethesda]) OK. There is NOOOOOOOO Multiplayer. No kidding here. We're concentrating on single-player. There are better games out there for multi-play. Better to have one great game, than 2 average ones.
(KenRolston) Or, alternatively, we cna go into the editor, name all the NPCs "kid_nekkid," then go smack the living shit out of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 07, 2012, 09:12:44 AM
I took that one from Edge magazine, and it may as well be 8-bit for all it's fidelity, but point taken.



Could have used a NSFW warning there, in addition to the spoilertag.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 07, 2012, 01:48:16 PM
Twenty minute interview with creative director here: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/07/the-challenge-of-elder-scrolls-online-an-interview-with-the-creative-director.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 08, 2012, 02:16:29 AM
Twenty minute interview with creative director here: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/07/the-challenge-of-elder-scrolls-online-an-interview-with-the-creative-director.aspx

Quite a generic interview: the only highlight seem the three faction PvP feature, which I'm sure it may be fun for those who are into that kind of MMOG sub-system. Beside that, among the vague answers, he just confirms what we read in the GI article.

I'm no designer for sure, so I can't judge, but I'm not really sold on Paul Sage as Creative Director: I know him for his work on UO (designer then Lead Designer during the "Third Dawn" era) and Tabula Rasa: at least when he was in charge, I mostly remember half assed systems coming out in those games. Passion surely is helpful (and he shows it throughout the interview), but it's not everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 08, 2012, 07:59:09 AM
I wanted to claw my eyes out around 3:20 of that interview.  "Interactivity" means there are chests and barrels in cities that you can click on and look inside, but since it's an MMO with an economy to manage, those barrels will all be empty.

...is this releasing in 1999 or something?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on May 08, 2012, 09:17:00 PM
I don't think I can think of any other game whose announcement was met with such near-universal negativity. It's a new record, even for MMOs.

The idea of an MMO Elder Scroll game is such a cool one, why did they have to go and do this :( Just about all of the decent things they've announced as features will be found in GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on May 08, 2012, 10:15:33 PM
For all my bitching about how games require innovation to be successful, Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games.  Innovation last for minutes, execution lasts for much, much longer. 

TES games were always fun and quirky, but some of the best fun and quirky games in the fantasy rpg genre.  Unfortunately, people don't play fun and quirky MORGs for longer than the box free month. 

So they're looking to launch a game when:  a. people are burning out on the genre, b. it costs too much to put a AAA title to market c. market is utterly over saturated with fantasy MORGs.

The deck is completely stacked against them, and I'm not sure why their analysts think continuing is a good thing. 

Personally, I would have been more excited had they said they're working on a persistent single-player/co-op/4 player world that grows by province over time.  Let me connect to Tamriel with three of my buddies, ramp up the difficulty with more people.  Win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 08, 2012, 10:58:10 PM
This announcement is just tone-deaf. The response is universally negative because the pitch is basically "do you like The Elder Scrolls except for all the game systems? Then we have the game for you!"

It's very hard to understand who is supposed to be excited about this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on May 08, 2012, 11:28:43 PM
Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games. 

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Do games have an iLvl budget or something?

Also there's a difference between "not amazingly innovative" and "exactly the same shit we've seen try to compete with WoW and fail over and over and over again for years now".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 09, 2012, 12:11:43 AM
TES games were always fun and quirky, but some of the best fun and quirky games in the fantasy rpg genre.

... They are? I thought they were generally stodgy, ugly, terrible (before the modders fixed it) and the only game in town. Most other studios moved to much more focused, flashy, directed and short games leaving TES looking like some archaic hold-over but also the best of breed for those who still wanted that sort of gaming. In fact their games improved a lot when they got a injection of new ideas from gaining the fallout IP.

I'd be happier if they'd looked at ME3 and gone for a rich single player experience with co-op or multi-player extensions to it. That would have been a good transition into the MMO market. But regardless of that the announcement does a really poor job of selling the game as anything interesting. It more or less says "more of the same, from a design locked down when WoW was ascendant" and they should have known what was coming.

Then again, they've never been all that great at sales flash I guess.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 09, 2012, 12:18:09 AM
Sheepherder, where did u get that chat log from. sounds insane.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on May 09, 2012, 12:34:41 AM
Google tells me it's from here (http://morrowind.ttlg.com/features/velog.shtml). VoodooExtreme... man, that's so 1990s.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Murgos on May 09, 2012, 05:02:05 AM
I'll come back in three years when they are closer to releasing, or at least having a real product.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 09, 2012, 09:49:52 AM
sounds insane.
Quote
(Pete) there will be lots of nudity once the gamers get their hands on the editor, but none before then.
:awesome_for_real:

Google hit on this site (http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=27) for me.  It's more or less the same repost as Zetor provided.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 09, 2012, 10:00:28 AM
I'll come back in three years when they are closer to releasing, or at least having a real product.

I was going to say something about the fact that it's already five years in development and will be hitting in 2013, but on second thought that doesn't really change your statement much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 09, 2012, 01:48:52 PM
Video interview with Matt Firor (6 minutes long) ; talks about giving a great PvE experience while providing a kickass PvP one; motivation for setting the game lore in the past; involvement of Todd Howard and the other Bethesda guys; more fluff.

Most interesting thing: the traditional Elder Scrolls tunes playing in the background  :grin:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/09/the-origins-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 09, 2012, 02:04:28 PM
Hilarious part of that interview to me:

Quote
The naming it actually proved to be somewhat of an excercise. We started with Elder Scrolls: Online. Then we came up with Elder Scrolls Origins. The problem with origins is when we start to do expansions the name doesn't make sense. The Elder Scrolls Origin Second expansion? We did consider other names, the marketing guys whiteboarded a bunch of names that didn't make the cut. Tamriel was on that list. Really, we just went back to the easy decision which was The Elder Scrolls Online. Elder Scrolls Online, nice and easy, it says it all.

That naming the game was too tough, so we just did the easy thing and moved on. That's the kind of guy I want heading up my project, right there.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
It's very hard to understand who is supposed to be excited about this.

That sums it up for me as well.

I'm conditioned to gnash teeth during the process when all the early over the top promises devolve during development. I'm not conditioned to developers promising to do nothing more than be competent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 11, 2012, 12:56:32 AM
The deck is completely stacked against them, and I'm not sure why their analysts think continuing is a good thing.  

Their analysts in 2007 thought it looked like a good idea.

And that's the problem with MMO development. It takes 5 years or longer to get something out the door, by which time the market has completely shifted.

Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games. 

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Do games have an iLvl budget or something?

They aren't mutually exclusive, just hard to pull off right the first time. Given that MMO players tend not to hang around as long as they once did, getting it right the first time has become increasingly important.

Plus what people generally (say they) want is some kind of revolutionary innovation that stands out and changes everything, not an evolutionary innovation that tweaks / improves an existing system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 11, 2012, 08:05:09 PM
It's kind of depressing when you realize they've got virtually nothing they can salvage from this if it flops or if they pull the plug.

-IP?  Nope, they were just borrowing one that already existed
-Engine? It's just the Hero Engine.
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.
-Radical new systems/tech? They appear not to have come up with any.

IMHO, if you're going to fail, fail like Turbine failed with AC2; structure your failure in such a way that you walk away with assets you can make good use of going forward. (In Turbine's case, the engine that ended up powering DDO and LoTRO)  The larger an MMO project like this gets, the less sticking that with something prefab and generic like the Hero Engine to cut costs makes sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 11, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.

How quickly we forget how ugly every single pre-Skyrim game was. (At least the models.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 11, 2012, 08:53:34 PM
Morrowind was awesomely hideous.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 12, 2012, 12:26:09 AM
"Awesomely hideous" wasn't the first thought which entered my mind, actually. In fact, I didn't even think much about the graphics when I did a quick test run just now (just to make sure I didn't just look back all rosey-eyed on it).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 12, 2012, 12:34:15 AM
Aside from some of the character heads and models, I still don't mind Morrowind's graphics. They're pretty much at the top tier for the era the game was developed in, but people still comment on them a lot because of the constant exposure Morrowind's kept over the past ten years, especially on platforms like Steam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 12, 2012, 12:37:59 AM
My feeling at the time when it came out was that it was the ugliest new game I had ever played. The faces are just awful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 12, 2012, 02:08:13 AM
Argonians were far and away the worst.  Didn't improve much in Oblivion.  Look good in Skyrim.  I actually started the TES series with Daggerfall, but it was so buggy on my PC that I didn't get far at all.  Don't remember how they looked there.

Skyrim has spoiled me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on May 12, 2012, 02:14:58 AM
Quality and polish wise, Skyrim is not the norm for TES games. Skyrim blindsided everyone by being a really good game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 12, 2012, 07:52:52 AM
Damn you infidels! ESO will have something for everyone, as you can read in the following, new article on Game Informer!

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/11/what-elder-scrolls-online-offers-skyrim-fans-mmo-players.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 12, 2012, 08:03:41 AM
So it'll be even more expensive than SWTOR. Promising start. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Selby on May 12, 2012, 08:10:45 AM
"Awesomely hideous" wasn't the first thought which entered my mind, actually. In fact, I didn't even think much about the graphics when I did a quick test run just now (just to make sure I didn't just look back all rosey-eyed on it).
Eh, everything was a different shade of brown when I played it.  The models were a little wonky looking at times, but what really sticks in my mind is the brown... everywhere.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 12, 2012, 08:47:31 AM
"Nonetheless, writing off ESO as “just another MMO” or “WoW with daedra” is doing this ambitious project a grave disservice."

Sure thing buddy. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 12, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
I always like finding the important stuff in these dry hump previews!

-Some things, like player housing, aren’t making the transition to an MMO because of the constraints inherent to an online game, but Zenimax Online is including everything that makes sense. (Housing didn't make sense because you couldn't own houses in the other games)

-ESO’s public dungeons, unless Zenimax Online badly botches the design, should recreate some of what made BRD special...but hopefully without the painful process of finding a group (gotta love when a hump piece reminds you that something was painful and could be botched)

-Take out the server-crashing lag, since the engine can handle up to 200 players onscreen and Zenimax Online has still-under-wraps plans to divert excess population. (SECRET PLANS! That'll solve the unsolveable up to now!)

-ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great. (Less stuff = innovation)

-Outside of flashpoints, cooperating with other players in SW:TOR is extremely limited in scope. That hopefully won’t be the case in ESO. (we don't know, but we're HOPING!)

-The baseline solo encounter design has players taking on three enemies at a time, and they work together to bring you down by combining skills like lighting oil patches on fire. (Like Dragon Age circa 3 years ago!)

-Rifts are amazing, and Zenimax Online hopes to recreate the sense of working together with random strangers with the Fighters Guild content as well as public dungeons. (HOPE AND CHANGE!)

-Fans of the franchise have a lot of questions yet to be answered, like how the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood will work in an MMO setting and how Zenimax Online is going to approximate the rich interactions with objects in the world that we’ve gotten used to since Morrowind. (or like, Hey why is the combat completely different?)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 12, 2012, 09:31:06 AM
-The baseline solo encounter design has players taking on three enemies at a time, and they work together to bring you down by combining skills like lighting oil patches on fire. (Like Dragon Age circa 3 years ago!)

Or City of Heroes circa 2005.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on May 12, 2012, 03:06:31 PM
Sounds like wank.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 12, 2012, 06:21:21 PM
Hasn't every MMO in the past 8 years talked about how you take on multiple mobs at once?

In the end 3 mobs with 1/3 the damage and hp is the same anyway...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 12, 2012, 06:33:27 PM
-ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great. (Less stuff = innovation)

"We have plans for a console release at some point."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 12, 2012, 06:55:57 PM
In the end 3 mobs with 1/3 the damage and hp is the same anyway...

Your math is off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 13, 2012, 05:57:23 PM
You know, when I was playing Skyrim with a follower I was thinking "you know they could expand this into a co-op game and it could work like this."

This isn't going to work. I stand with the prophets of DOOOOOOM!!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2012, 06:01:21 AM
Instead of TES MMO they should just make Skyrim SMO (Somewhat Multiplayer Online-ish).  Change absofuckinglutely zero of the systems, because fuck balance in the earhole.  Skyrim single player is a fucking astonishing game.  Skyrim 2 Co-op would be fantastic.  Skyrim Diku toolbar clicking raiding PvP bullshit is going to fail horrendously.  They will remove absolutely everything that makes Skyrim great.  Including the graphics for some reason I cannot wrap my head around.

Do Not Want.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 14, 2012, 06:16:21 AM
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.

One is not connected to the other.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2012, 09:34:08 AM
I fucking love this paragraph.

Quote
ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great.

Yes, because most MMO devs set out to make sure at least half of all abilities are the opposite of awesome.

The rest of the article is a bit hard to understand with so much cock in the writer's mouth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 14, 2012, 10:27:11 AM
Tab target/hotbar combat is a huge turn off.  I'm still waiting and see right now until I can see what kind of content they have.  I'm pretty sure it's just more of the same.  Nothing screams different to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 14, 2012, 10:44:20 AM
Quote from: HaemishM

The rest of the article is a bit hard to understand with so much cock in the writer's mouth.

Such a cryptic statement.

 :grin:
---

Oh, here is a new article on Game Informer related to their intentions with the game music:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/12/talking-about-the-music-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

After reading a bit more carefully, I realize it's different, but for a moment I thought those guys were actually talking about iMuse like it was a new thing :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LucasArts#iMUSE


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 10:12:22 AM
Instead of TES MMO they should just make Skyrim SMO (Somewhat Multiplayer Online-ish).  Change absofuckinglutely zero of the systems, because fuck balance in the earhole.  Skyrim single player is a fucking astonishing game.  Skyrim 2 Co-op would be fantastic.  Skyrim Diku toolbar clicking raiding PvP bullshit is going to fail horrendously.  They will remove absolutely everything that makes Skyrim great.  Including the graphics for some reason I cannot wrap my head around.

Do Not Want.

Agreed. One of the hallmarks of a marture organization is knowing then you're just churning. Fine, they payed for the Hero Engine so they want to get some return on that investment. Fine, a MMO would help recoup the licensing fees and dev cost with box and subscriptions. If its an innovative product. This is a train wreck. Pull the damn plug, fire some people and have a large assed 'lessons learned' meeting allowing the survivors to start over from square one.

This project is just brain dead - praying that inertia will result in profit.

Zenimax is not fucking GM. Will Not Work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 15, 2012, 10:36:18 AM
I agree, the best case scenario is the scrap the project before they dump another year of development costs, salaries, and fees into a project that will do nothing but damage the brand. I seriously doubt that the game will recoup enough in 2013 to make up for the interval costs associated with the interim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 15, 2012, 11:32:14 AM
Even in the very unlikely event that they do scrap 5 years or work and start over, who knows what the MMO landscape will look like in 2017. A 2012 design from a team that lacks the desire to innovate is likely to look just as tired in 2017 as TESO looks now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 15, 2012, 11:41:58 AM
No, no. Scrap the MMO idea. Roll the team into Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell. Make it with a multiplayer co-op element.

Profit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 11:53:31 AM
What he said.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 15, 2012, 11:57:36 AM
One of the 3 playable factions, The Daggerfall Covenant (Bretons, Orcs, Redguards):

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/14/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-daggerfall-covenant.aspx



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 15, 2012, 12:10:29 PM
No, no. Scrap the MMO idea. Roll the team into Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell. Make it with a multiplayer co-op element.

I don't know, wouldn't network latency be an issue for a multiplayer Elder Scrolls game?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 15, 2012, 12:29:22 PM
One of the 3 playable factions, The Daggerfall Covenant (Bretons, Orcs, Redguards):

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/14/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-daggerfall-covenant.aspx



Hang on, they're doing this by race?  The fuck?  The time period for this game is supposed to be after the unification of the Empire, is it not?  So why are the factions racial?  And Orcs teaming up with Bretons?  Isn't that in contradiction of the timeline?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 15, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 15, 2012, 01:05:33 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.

Yeah, that's the problem.  This takes place something like halfway through the second era, does it not?  Orsinium has been in rubble for centuries, after being destroyed by Daggerfall, and the entire continent has been united under the empire for hundreds of years, I'm not seeing where this faction makes any sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 15, 2012, 02:06:24 PM
DAoC2: The Elder Scrolls: Hammerfell Boogaloo


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 03:43:17 PM
I just have this image of the CIO screaming in incoherent rage for 5 minutes once they figure out the state of this thing, his head exploding, and the resulting rage zombie hunting down everyone involved for repeated defensteration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 15, 2012, 04:38:17 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.

Yeah, that's the problem.  This takes place something like halfway through the second era, does it not?  Orsinium has been in rubble for centuries, after being destroyed by Daggerfall, and the entire continent has been united under the empire for hundreds of years, I'm not seeing where this faction makes any sense.

I'm no TES lore monkey, but there are some serious lore geeks over on the official fourms who have explained, within the lore, how these factions make sense 'just fine.'

If this game is going to suck, I don't think it will be because they butcher the lore.  Sure, there are other concerns, and I will grant that they are valid concerns for now.  I want to see what comes out of E3, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 15, 2012, 11:02:28 PM
I want to see what comes out of E3, though.

What will come out of E3 will be something that:
- Looks far worse than Skyrim
- Has boring ass toolbar/Diku/cooldown combat
- Has some kind of raid mechanic
- Has meaningless PvP
- Will cater to the usual bullshit needs of the MMO crowd
- Has the usual Collect 10 Bandit Anuses quests
- Is no more fun than any current MMO
- Is not Elder Scrolls 6: Co-op (or even just single player)
- Is a complete waste of resources

I mean, come on.  I am not saying there isn't a place for traditional MMOs in this world.  But why take something amazing and water it down like this?  Fuck me.  The worst thing about this project by far is that it will take time, money, resources and effort away from what they should be doing instead. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 07:15:42 AM
I want to see what comes out of E3, though.

What will come out of E3 will be something that:
- Looks far worse than Skyrim
Eh, kinda a matter of opinion, no?  I thought Skyrim vistas were great, but look at anything up close and it turned to shit.  Plus it was a pretty damn limited color palette, especially once you got inside any dungeon (basically the same greyish blue/green/brown depending on light.
- Has boring ass toolbar/Diku/cooldown combat
Another matter of opinion.  The most exciting games I've played use a toolbar.  DAOC was toolbar/diku based and still you had to time your positional, reactive and follow-up styles, while managing your endurance.  This game sounds to be similar.  I'm onboard for that.
- Has some kind of raid mechanic
Yes - like you said, though, there's nothing wrong with an MMO being an MMO.
- Has meaningless PvP
You are really shooting in the dark on this one.  I think the PVP will be far more meaningful than any other MMO pvp currently on the market. (other than some tiny audience ones with huge flaws in other gameplay aspects)
- Will cater to the usual bullshit needs of the MMO crowd
Yes - this IS an MMO...
- Has the usual Collect 10 Bandit Anuses quests
Maybe some, but I'm onboard because they offer a hubless quest system.  This won't be like that rediculous Korean game where you have to go from one hub to the next collecting 50 quests to collect bear assess for each person.  Released info stresses the ability to explore and discover content naturally without the need for NPC standing around with a big yellow exclamation point on their head.
- Is no more fun than any current MMO
Doubt you are right here, as far as many of us are concerned.  I'm not really having fun in ANY current MMO, but I probably would if I resubbed to DAOC, as sad as that game has become population-wise.  This game really doesn't have to achieve much to be more fun than the current crop of top MMOs.
- Is not Elder Scrolls 6: Co-op (or even just single player)
No...you can wait for that from Bethesda.  Have fun playing a piece of shit console to PC port with dumbed down RPG stats and boring ass combat where you do this: swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep.  OR - if you are caster: fireball, fireball, fireball, fireball.  Woohoo.
- Is a complete waste of resources
I disagree.

I mean, come on.  I am not saying there isn't a place for traditional MMOs in this world.  But why take something amazing and water it down like this?  Fuck me.  The worst thing about this project by far is that it will take time, money, resources and effort away from what they should be doing instead. 

Judging from your post, you aren't the target audience.  I can say that unless they completely botch this game and it performs awfully with constant crashes or something, many of us will be buying for 1 of 3 reasons:
1 - It might be the spiritual successor to DAOC
2 - It's a chance to really explore Tamriel in a social environment
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else

I fit all 3 of those categories, so, yeah, I'll probably be there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 16, 2012, 07:28:01 AM
No one who likes The Elder Scrolls is the target market for this.

So far this makes as much sense as an X-com FPS.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 07:37:46 AM

Judging from your post, you aren't the target audience.  I can say that unless they completely botch this game and it performs awfully with constant crashes or something, many of us will be buying for 1 of 3 reasons:
1 - It might be the spiritual successor to DAOC
2 - It's a chance to really explore Tamriel in a social environment
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else

I fit all 3 of those categories, so, yeah, I'll probably be there.

Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 16, 2012, 08:02:48 AM
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else
Yeah, see - that's where it all falls apart. From what they've described so far, this ISN'T "something else". It's not an Elder Scrolls game, and it's not "something else". It's a rehash/mashup of DIKU-muds we've already played. Just re-arranging bits and pieces here and there does not "something else" make.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
I sent a detailed email to Bethesda and Zenimax today suggesting that they reconsider this project.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 08:20:36 AM
Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.

C'mon, Draegan - you run a network of gaming sites and that's the best you can come up with?  People are thinking this might be more like DAOC than, for instance, WOW with 3 factions because:
1 - it DOES have 3 factions
2 - it's being made by Matt Firor and many of the original DAOC RVR programmers
3 - those guys had nothing to do with WAR, having left Mythic prior to that
4 - the system of interrupts, endurance management and style chains described sounds much like DAOC combat with a new polish


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 08:25:43 AM
I sent a detailed email to Bethesda and Zenimax today suggesting that they reconsider this project.

I'm sure they'll get your email and immediately notify their investors that they are halting the project.  Surely there's no need to worry about hundreds of millions of dollars spent, or the product of 250 employees working for 5 years being tossed down a drain because of how one very influential emailer felt when he read some pre-release info!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 08:40:16 AM
Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.

C'mon, Draegan - you run a network of gaming sites and that's the best you can come up with?  People are thinking this might be more like DAOC than, for instance, WOW with 3 factions because:
1 - it DOES have 3 factions
2 - it's being made by Matt Firor and many of the original DAOC RVR programmers
3 - those guys had nothing to do with WAR, having left Mythic prior to that
4 - the system of interrupts, endurance management and style chains described sounds much like DAOC combat with a new polish

1 - So what?  WOW and DAOC both had swords, spells and classes.  Doesn't mean anything.  Just because all games have gone with two factions and we now have a new future game with a third faction, doesn't just make it special.

2 - Doesn't mean anything.  TES doesn't scream PVP to me at all.  I look to game devs for systems they design not over all game schemes.  Plus who trusts MMO game devs anyway?

3 - I don't see why this was brought up.

4 - This could be said about any game on the market now.  A system will skills, skills that can stop other skills, class mechanics that you manage, and chained abilities.  Shrug.

I know you're a fanboy and all, but come the fuck on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 08:52:49 AM
1 - So what?  WOW and DAOC both had swords, spells and classes.  Doesn't mean anything.  Just because all games have gone with two factions and we now have a new future game with a third faction, doesn't just make it special.
You never played DAOC?  Three factions are important.  You saying it is nothing special shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

2 - Doesn't mean anything.  TES doesn't scream PVP to me at all.  I look to game devs for systems they design not over all game schemes.  Plus who trusts MMO game devs anyway?
You asked why people are bringing up comparisons to DAOC.  I think the idea that this game is being made, largely, by ex-DAOC devs is an important part of the reason.

3 - I don't see why this was brought up.
It's called anticipating objections.

4 - This could be said about any game on the market now.  A system will skills, skills that can stop other skills, class mechanics that you manage, and chained abilities.  Shrug.
Again, if you played DAOC, you'd understand the difference.

I know you're a fanboy and all, but come the fuck on.
Ad hominem doesn't make you seem smarter or right.  You asked a specific question, I explained the answer to you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2012, 08:54:06 AM
It's a bit surreal to see someone besides Bloodworth white-knighting a game that is obviously doomed from the word go, even moreso to see Bloodworth pointing out how bad of an idea this is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 16, 2012, 08:57:11 AM
Blackwulf, shut up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Can you stop replying to people that way?  It's fucking annoying. I'm going to ignore the rest of your silliness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 09:03:50 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

A: Say, "I told you so."

-or-

B: Say, "You guys were so right, can't believe I am such a sap."

Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 16, 2012, 09:12:35 AM
 :popcorn:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2012, 09:22:30 AM
I'm sorry, blackwulf, I couldn't understand you with Matt Firor's cock in your mouth.

Seriously, your entire point seems to be that Matt Firor was involved and their press releases said that every feature they cribbed off every other MMO that has come out is somehow new and miraculous. I'm willing to admit that I could be totally wrong - it's happened before. I thought Shadowbane would be a depressing mess of griefing and shittastic play (I wasn't totally wrong, it was that but that wasn't what killed the game - face-fucking bugs were) but I ended up enjoying the shit out of it until I couldn't take the bugs anymore.

But early days with the information that's been released? It looks like Alganon with a popular IP and without the Good Doctor to save it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 09:32:19 AM
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else
Yeah, see - that's where it all falls apart. From what they've described so far, this ISN'T "something else". It's not an Elder Scrolls game, and it's not "something else". It's a rehash/mashup of DIKU-muds we've already played. Just re-arranging bits and pieces here and there does not "something else" make.

Yes yes. But its Fuchsia now! Of course its all spangly and new you silly person. It's not like they went all rabid and added STRIPES!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 16, 2012, 10:01:16 AM
I still can't find any redeeming value in this conversion from TES style and combat. To Standard fair MMO combat. Regardless of my opinion of it.

Why would you do that? Who are you talking to? Have they played the other TES games?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 11:00:26 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

EDIT: Same for the character building, for that matter.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 16, 2012, 11:28:21 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

Oh no! Not... that guy! He was such a pillar of the community over the years, contributing to so many discussions!

Please rethink this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

Tell Matty F we said lulz.

Of course, you were that guy with such glorious opinions as "MMO SKILLBAR COMBAT??? FUCK YEAH, BONER ACHIEVED!!!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 16, 2012, 12:23:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

EDIT: Same for the character building, for that matter.

Nobody wants TES combat in an MMO because nobody wants a TES MMO except for Zenimax. For the past ten+ years, all anyone's wanted is Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim, but with co-op.

And the combat's fine in TES anyway. It's no Dark Messiah (whose combat was vastly overrated) or Mount & Blade, but it did what it was designed to do just fine.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 12:41:27 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

I liked Skyrim's combat. It was certainly more fun and less stale than SWTOR's, for example, which was the last attempt at copying WoW's combat.

That said, we want TES combat because we're talking about a TES MMO. It's a core part of the series and it shouldn't be stripped out just because they're adding more players.

Mass Effect combat has never been amazing (though it's certainly gotten better). I'd still be disappointed if they announced a Mass Effect MMO that ditched the third-person-shooting in favor of tab-target action bar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
It shouldn't be stripped out because they're adding more players, it should be stripped out because it sucks.

Mass Effect combat (post-ME1) isn't even in the same universe of shitty.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 12:51:20 PM
Or they could continue to improve it. Would Mass Effect have been better off if after 1 Bioware said "Man, we suck at making shooters, lets just go to back to KOTOR combat"?

They slowly improved it with 2 and 3 and what we have right now with ME3 is much more entertaining than KOTOR's combat. Skyrim's combat is likewise a large improvement over Oblivion/Morrowind. You don't completely scrap the gameplay that has been the foundation of your series just because it's not perfect yet or you're adding more players.

TESO's combat design is an embarrassing cop-out


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 12:55:11 PM
Conversely KOTOR's combat is more entertaining than even Skyrim's, and prior versions of TES combat don't even enter the conversation. The difference? Melee combat.

The only game that's ever come close to making 'action' first person melee combat work, IMO, is Mount & Blade, and frankly the difficulty curve there for non-mounted melee is well beyond what the average player wants to deal with I'd guess. Even there the multiplayer combat is a horrible mess of circle strafing and such.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 12:59:04 PM
Zenoclash and Condemned are both great examples of first-person melee combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 01:16:45 PM
I'll have to take your word on those, I haven't played either. Amend my previous statement to include 'that I've played' somewhere in it.

Do they have multiplayer?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 01:17:36 PM
Conversely KOTOR's combat is more entertaining than even Skyrim's

Your opinion may not match the populace on this one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on May 16, 2012, 01:20:04 PM
I found the Fallout 3 combat system passable (and it was even better in FNV... yeah I know, obsidian), so bethesda -can- make an ok combat system if they're forced to.

I also remember a mod for oblivion [deadly reflex?] that added a lot of variety to combat with various acrobatic moves, combos, and the like. I have yet to get more than 2-3 hours into oblivion to have an opinion on that, though  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
The difference, with FO3, is guns. TES games do ranged combat fine. Melee in FO3 is really only made viable by VATS, which wouldn't really be possible in a multiplayer game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
Do they have multiplayer?

Condemned 2 and Zenoclash both have MP that works pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD3o6gtetDc

Skip to 3:30 for an example of what weapon combat looks like. Condemned 1/2 were both actually pretty great games, and the first to really nail first-person melee combat (imo). A shame we probably won't see any more of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 16, 2012, 01:59:55 PM
Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

Tell Matty F we said lulz.

Of course, you were that guy with such glorious opinions as "MMO SKILLBAR COMBAT??? FUCK YEAH, BONER ACHIEVED!!!"

Damnit blackwulf, you could have made a more glorious exit, like "and beware, F13'ers: look to your posts, because the internet is dark and full of Firor, Fries, terrors"...Or something :P. Geeze.
------

And here is the Aldmeri Dominion (Altmer, Bosmer, Khajiit) faction profile:

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/16/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-aldmeri-dominion.aspx

Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 02:11:05 PM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 02:13:59 PM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.

Me either  :awesome_for_real:

Man the fail is strong with this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.

Well, see, they're a DOMINION. And they're like, angry. Angry elves who like to dominate.

Fuck. Its a BDSM club run by elves.

I see how they'll sell the game now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 16, 2012, 11:54:00 PM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.

I'm still having a hard time getting over the Orc/Redguard/Breton and Dunmer/Nord/Argonian love-ins.  Yes, I get they chose the second era because it's a blank slate, and they can arguably do something completely contradictory to all standing lore in it.  A better solution would have been anything else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 17, 2012, 05:11:16 AM
Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.
Well, see, they're a DOMINION. And they're like, angry. Angry elves who like to dominate.

Fuck. Its a BDSM club run by elves.

I see how they'll sell the game now.
To be fair, in the actual Elder Scrolls lolore the dominion is literally that. They're super-racists that want to grind the rest of the world under their bootheel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 17, 2012, 05:58:39 AM
Yeah I can really see a bunch of racists letting in the Cat people.  :oh_i_see: Besides, the Kajit wouldn't want to kill you. Whose shit would they steal if you're dead?  :grin:

And I liked oblivion combat. It actually gave some benefits to going unarmoured, in that you could jump around a lot higher which suited my "I'm a frog vit lightning bolts!" combat style and your spells hit harder. In Skyrym, much as I like the game, your armour makes sod all difference to manoeuvrability aside from what perks you want and it makes no difference whatsoever to spellcasting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 17, 2012, 06:27:38 AM
The Kahjit being in the dominion is kinda confusing, yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 17, 2012, 06:45:29 AM
Were I to even consider playing it, the faction set-up would cause all kinds of splits with friends.  (And Khajit-lovers getting stuck with the elves.  Hah!)  As if we didn't have enough problems deciding on a side in two faction systems...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 17, 2012, 07:09:51 AM
I would F-ing love a 4-8 player Oblivion.

4 Seems to be the magic number these days though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2012, 07:53:44 AM
I would F-ing love a 4-8 player Oblivion.

4 Seems to be the magic number these days though.

I like to think of it when people go out to drink or party. Anything over 3-4 people becomes harder to manage out on the town.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 17, 2012, 08:43:58 AM
Were I to even consider playing it, the faction set-up would cause all kinds of splits with friends.  (And Khajit-lovers getting stuck with the elves.  Hah!)  As if we didn't have enough problems deciding on a side in two faction systems...

Yeah. This is the problem with coming into something which has 20 years of NOT picking factions behind it. Every prospective buyer already knows what they're used to when it comes to TES racial dynamics. They have their favorite races to play and it's never, ever mattered beyond storyline purposes. Now? Oh, glad you like Dunmer and your wife likes Argonians. Too bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 17, 2012, 10:11:38 AM
Well, Dunmer and Argonians are the same faction, but that's even worse -- take two of the most popular races and put them together.  Sprinkle everything else amongst the others.

Dunmer + Argonians + Nord = Two games worth of races whose regions were the focus plus one of the unique beast races.

Khajit + Elves + Other Elves = Other beast race and fucking elves.

Orcs + Humans + Other Humans = Orcs are kind of cool.  Humans?  Yawn.

Now if players can make whatever and choose to join one of these factions that are dominated by NPCs of the races, that might mitigate it a little.  But only a little.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 17, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
A better solution would have been anything else.
Now if players can make whatever and choose to join one of these factions that are dominated by NPCs of the races, that might mitigate it a little.  But only a little.

You should show up and ask for some fucker's job.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 17, 2012, 01:36:47 PM
The Kahjit being in the dominion is kinda confusing, yeah.

I'd argue it depends on which version of the Khajiit they're using.  In the original Arena, they were basically identical to wood elves (there were "legends" that they were descended from desert cats, but otherwise humanoid), it wasn't until Morrowind that they went full furry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 17, 2012, 09:40:21 PM
The "full furry" Khajiit are what probably 80% or more of TES players are familiar with, so it's probably a pretty safe bet that's what they'll go with. I would be stunned if they even acknowledge the various Khajiit breeds they came up with to explain why Khajiit are suddenly actual cat-people with barbed penises.

Then again, this game throws out pretty much everything else TES players would find familiar, so who the hell knows.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 18, 2012, 02:19:10 PM
The Ebonheart Pact (Dunmer, Nord, Argonian) :

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/18/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-ebonheart-pact.aspx

Quote
“About 50 years prior to the game, an Akaviri invasion came in and basically tried to take over,” says creative director Paul Sage. “What happens now is that the Dunmer and the Nords have formed an alliance because the attack was so bad that they realized they were weak to the Imperial rise. So they form an alliance of convenience with the Argonians. They’re surrounded by all these tides of opposing forces. They feel really threatened, so the Ebonheart’s entire purpose is to band together and make sure they’re no longer in danger.”


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 19, 2012, 03:50:55 AM
Game Informer posted another interview with Matt Firor; they talk a bit more about what we can expect in ESO in terms of gameplay: it's now Firor's turn to tell what exactly MMOs have done wrong in the last 10 years or so, and as usual, he has a SOLUTION.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/17/what-makes-the-elder-scrolls-online-a-modern-mmo.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 19, 2012, 04:38:44 AM
So, raiding aside, the whole interview pretty much boils down to "I read the ArenaNet manifesto and went fuck yeah!" or am I missing something?

Full rewards for helping out other players? Check. Exploration driven, hubless questing? Check. Solo, instanced questing for the major story quests? Check.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2012, 07:57:53 AM
Yeah none of that sounds great. Many v. Many raids? PvE with instancing to keep it feeling like you're hero? That's not innovative, Matt. You are the guy walking into a brainstorm session talking about this great new idea of allowing users to send messages to each other via their phones!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2012, 11:43:57 AM
The problem with that entire interview is the same problem with the entire swath of information that's being put out there. It's all spoken in the language of MMO. The game design is constrained by the legacy problems MMO's have - it can't be innovative at all, because all it's doing is taking what's been done before and iterating on it. The language is restrictive and can't conceive of something outside the normal range of MMO concepts.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 19, 2012, 01:49:53 PM
Skyrim was innovative (in ways) and it's highly polished.  How can they have such a difference in offerings?  It's a ridiculous comparison, but reading all this it feels like holding an iPhone4 to a Newton.  Releasing something as beautiful and great as Skyrim from the same company that's promising DAoC2 is just bizarre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2012, 02:36:59 PM
Same publisher, not same studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 19, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
Man I keep hoping something good will come up, something promising.

Different developer sure, but nobody seems to be managing the ES brand here. You can do whatever you want with a brand if you own it of course. And it's not like the ES series is a paragon of game mechanic consistency and narrative. Shit, I couldn't even tell you what the damned scrolls were.

But brand equity requires some consistency, some foundation upon which others look and say "yep, that's an ES game". And it needs to be good. Nothing kills a brand better than a bad experience.

And here, worse for them, the only people who are even aware of an ESO are likely fairly knowledgable about both MMO and RPG.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on May 19, 2012, 08:09:38 PM
To me TES was always about solo play. I mean every game in series is single character in a huge sandbox world. No parties ,companions ,etc  (well skyrim has optional companions , but that doesnt count). Now MMOs?- MMOS is all about other people. And well you know what hell is?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2012, 11:02:19 AM
Same publisher, not same studio.

Which will matter exactly fuckall to the mouth-breathers out there, which is almost all of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 20, 2012, 11:12:24 AM
Same publisher, not same studio.

Which will matter exactly fuckall to the mouth-breathers out there, which is almost all of them.

Precisely. Anything bad that comes out of ESO will reflect badly on Bethsoft and not Zenimax Online Studios.

I mean look how many people still, years later, think Bethsoft developed New Vegas. It's pretty staggering.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 20, 2012, 07:27:18 PM
And the same Bioware developed DA2, ME3 and SWTOR  :oh_i_see:

Just another brand damaged is all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 20, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
To me TES was always about solo play. I mean every game in series is single character in a huge sandbox world. No parties ,companions ,etc  (well skyrim has optional companions , but that doesnt count). Now MMOs?- MMOS is all about other people. And well you know what hell is?


Yeah.  I mean, I could see a co-op version being fun, but it's the sandbox that makes TES games fun.  I like being able to murder a whole village on a whim and see permanent consequences.  I like being stupidly overpowered in some ways, and underpowered in others.  I like the world feeling natural, not just a series of quest hubs and respawning bullshit.  I like being able to change my "alignment" on the fly.  I like being able to wander the wilderness knowing that I am not going to run across a bunch of dickheads.  I like gear not being terribly important, but being fun to collect and create nonetheless.  I like the idea of being able to mod the game, even if I only use a few of them.

In short, everything that makes Skyrim fun will not be in this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 21, 2012, 12:29:30 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2 and be done with it, it should be more than enough of a brand name at this point to get publicity all on its own, and (I assume) not starting out at such a negative level as they have when starting out with ES.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 21, 2012, 08:38:02 AM
Did DAOC have the range of Races that TES has. I mean you in TES have Viking Humans, Roman humans, Black Humans, British humans, Spanish Humans, Orcs, Light & Dark and Green Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns.

And you have a pretty decent history to ignore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 11:13:45 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2 and be done with it, it should be more than enough of a brand name at this point to get publicity all on its own, and (I assume) not starting out at such a negative level as they have when starting out with ES.

Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 21, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
Did DAOC have the range of Races that TES has. I mean you in TES have Viking Humans, Roman humans, Black Humans, British humans, Spanish Humans, Orcs, Light & Dark and Green Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns.

And you have a pretty decent history to ignore.

So, it's just Humans, Orcs, Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 11:18:28 AM
DAOC started with 12 races (so 3 more than TES:O since you can't play Imperial) - only 6 of them were human, assuming you count Avalonians - and added several more in later expansions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2012, 02:07:55 PM
Saracen
Highlanders
Britons
Avalonians


Norse
Troll
Dwarf
Kobold


Celt
Firbolg
Elf
Lurikeen


At release if I remember it all right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 21, 2012, 04:20:02 PM
Sounds like they would have been better off going for DAOC if they wanted variety of races. But they could keep down costs of modling with using TES (a dark Elf is a darker High elf) maybe?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 04:20:45 PM
Again, they don't own DAOC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 21, 2012, 04:29:00 PM
That hasn't stopped everyone trying to copy WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
I might actually give a shit if it was DaoC 2 though. The setting is pretty neat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 21, 2012, 10:10:37 PM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 22, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?
Well, what I meant was why don't they just license the name, but I've no idea how much that'd cost. And there's also this to contend with:

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

However, I can't help but think that going for TES for the game they're outlining is a huge mistake which will backfire and probably be more costly over the long run than it would be to either not do this, or use another IP they license or think up themselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 22, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 22, 2012, 12:40:38 PM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.

FIFY.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 22, 2012, 02:02:33 PM
Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?
Well, what I meant was why don't they just license the name, but I've no idea how much that'd cost.

It's owned by EA, a rival MMO maker. It would cost everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 22, 2012, 03:16:06 PM
"Creating the story for the Elder Scrolls Online" (12m video):

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/21/creating-the-story-for-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 22, 2012, 08:38:14 PM
Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.

FIFY.
:awesome_for_real:

DAoC has about as much reach as UO. Neither brand means jack beyond a core so dedicated they'll need to be physically unplugged from the world once they fall below the "keep the lights on" budget range.

Timing is part of brand building. But iterating on that brand in a consistent way to establish its tenets and "no go" areas is even more important. Both DAoC and UO haven't had much done with their brands. But honestly, I can almost accept that more than label slapping.

Like this title seems to be doing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 23, 2012, 03:13:49 PM
A new interview at Game Informer about quest system and stuff.  People interested in whether this game has any "TESness" might find it interesting:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/23/exploring-quests-in-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on May 24, 2012, 06:47:19 AM
All in all I am not holding any hopes, if it turns out a great game -then I ll play, if its another SWTOR-like 2monther I maybe will play too. for 2 month.   GW2 and Archeage is what I plan for MMO as MMO  for me is PvP and I dont  really care about the world, quests or epic mob raids


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 25, 2012, 06:10:00 AM
More details about how skill progression works.  Seems like they are actually more like TES than initially thought.

(also couple mroe screens)

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/05/25/how-combat-works-in-the-elder-scrolls-online/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 25, 2012, 06:27:29 AM
6 skills and deck building.

So it's The Elder Scrolls in Guild Wars/Secret World sauce?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2012, 08:08:09 AM
Excellent! I love new pieces on the combat. Let's dig in.

"Gameplay designer Nick Konkle talked me through how they’ve tried to apply the principles of the Elder Scrolls games into an MMORPG. Your skill bar in The Elder Scrolls Online has six slots..."

Ah yes, exactly like Skyrim. How fondly I remember my six slot skillbar. Good times!

“So I might just pick Summon Frost Atronach. And a Frost Atronach’s going to fall out of the sky and smash anyone he lands on, and then hang around and start beating on people. Yeah, that totally supports by rangery bow metaphor from earlier. That’s the character I wanted to play."

PvP designer Brian Wheeler interjects. “People also scream ‘Oh my god that is awesome’ when a Frost Atronach comes down.”

Nick: “That actually does happen."


It so totally happens you guys. I mean, like, for realz people screaming and shit! I know you've never summoned shit before in an MMOG. I have wood as we speak.

“The key is that those abilities, like the weapon, I can start with and use effectively initially, but in order to master I must play with over a long period of time. Which is very much like the Elder Scrolls games, and is our own way of interpreting that."

So what we've done here is taken WoW's weapon skillup system, except we've deleted the fumbling, bumbling penalties.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 25, 2012, 09:27:32 AM
You left out that WoW got rid of the skill-ups because it didn't add anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2012, 11:04:30 AM
I figured it was implied  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 25, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
Well, ok, but it's actually not that bad when you consider you're not (I don't think?) hamstrung into a single class that'll only ever use one or two types of weapons forever and ever. At least that's something from TES series. Of course, it's bootstrapped to the WoW style and layered in D3 build-your-deck class-based ability sauce. But at least it's different.

Until they hit their realworld testing phase and realize all the balance tables are unfixably borked, and start limiting things to class only  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 25, 2012, 01:45:56 PM
TESO not using Hero Engine.

 http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 25, 2012, 02:34:34 PM
Some of the newer articles actually make me warm up about the game.  Skill system is like GW2, which I like.  It really depends on how combat feels.  Is it WOW or is it GW2?

Who ever ok'd that original article should get yelled at.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 25, 2012, 03:21:52 PM
TESO not using Hero Engine.

 http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx

I don't actually believe this. Much more likely the current engine is a frankenstein creation just like SWTOR's was with bits and pieces of Heroengine left over. That said, most of the hate piled on Heroengine is misplaced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 28, 2012, 11:10:28 PM
For me, it isn't hate of the Hero Engine itself.  That engine is probably just fine for standard vanilla MMO XYZ (which this is going to turn into).  It's more because it means you can wave goodbye to the amazing, gorgeous and wonderful worlds that TES has been known for in recent years.  Take that away, and you remove one of the biggest reasons people play these games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 29, 2012, 12:34:45 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating the impact that the engine has on the actual look of a game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 29, 2012, 01:28:40 AM
... except for the Unreal Engine, which makes things look slightly wet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 29, 2012, 01:42:21 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating the impact that the engine has on the actual look of a game.

Probably.  And yet, I'm sure it won't look like I would want it to look.  Whatever. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 29, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Well of course it won't, you're an f13 poster and it is an MMO.  :-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 29, 2012, 03:13:14 PM
Two more interviews up - specifically about combat and tactics.

Warning - they are a little long.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/29/the-tactical-combat-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 29, 2012, 07:23:08 PM
They are way too long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 04:45:52 AM
They are way too long.

Nice videos, Blackwulf.  I'm excited for TES:O.  It definitely is sounding more and more like a spiritual successor to DAoC.

Unfortunately, in Draegan's case, you just can't fix stupid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 30, 2012, 05:10:48 AM
Well of course it won't, you're an f13 poster and it is an MMO.  :-P

I guess what I mean is that, for me, much of what makes a game like Skyrim standout is the fantastic living world they have crafted, and the graphical engine pushing it forward.  I suspect that whatever this thing turns out to be will not check those boxes at all.  Not to mention the sandboxiness, which definitely will not be there.  The lore in TES games is the thing I actually care least about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on May 30, 2012, 06:05:06 AM
Oink

First post and already insulting a regular, classy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 06:20:58 AM
Oink

First post and already insulting a regular, classy.

(http://newnation.sg/wp-content/uploads/badass-meme.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 30, 2012, 06:32:50 AM
So which banned poster under a new name are you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 06:41:50 AM
So which banned poster under a new name are you?

I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 30, 2012, 06:54:25 AM
I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.

 :awesome_for_real:

Welcome to F13.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 07:26:40 AM
I watched both videos. Here are the key points they made.

-Smaller number of attacks they want to be "cool and powerful" as well as creating ground effect and attack combo synergies, they group is very "anti-rotation" and wants situational combat to be the norm
-AI will work together to chain attacks using direct synergies and tactic
-Visual indicators will play up the usage of skills instead of tons of numbers and crap
-Blocking is based off of stamina, parrying shots, breaking roots, and bashes are based on this
-It's not just win/lose, the finesse system is in place where you can get rewarded for playing well (sorta like a baked in hidden combo system).
-They really tried to par down the UI, they wanted to get rid of caster bars for example and replace them with visual cues. "We don't want you to play a UI game, we want you to react to the gaming world."
-Location based effects are a centerpiece of the game.
-CC can be broken by stamina but since it's tied to defense it has to be strategic, passive abilities then keep you from getting CC'd again for 3s across all characters. People get caught in stunlocks because they used all stamina up.
-Weapons will adjust your abilities automatically to have a light attack and heavy attack, with different results, but you have the option to change on the fly between ranged/melee.
-Having fewer abilites but more counters to things with a finite pool of resources creates a direct tactical scenario beyond just rock-paper-scissors
-The idea they are tossing around is that in dungeons, mobs will change tactics based on your group composition. It won't just be pull, cc, etc. One example, is that there will be alarms and send in guys in different waves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 07:32:43 AM
From what I'm hearing I glean a few things from their approach:

1 - They say they want to get "beyond the numbers" with skills but their entire system is based on numbers. Geeks will break this. They ALWAYS do.
2 - The AI sounds like they are gunning for a form of the Faction Champions fight in WoW. All the time.
3 - There will be a metric fuckton of shit on the ground. From the way they tell it, you run into ground effects to open new combo skills. But mobs also do this.
4 - They really want you to make tactical decisions instead of standard mob responses. That's entirely based on how good their AI will be.
5 - The UI is going to be simple. They made no quotes about whether it would be moddable. That should scare the fuck out of anyone who has dealt with a TES UI.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 08:54:50 AM
They are way too long.

Nice videos, Blackwulf.  I'm excited for TES:O.  It definitely is sounding more and more like a spiritual successor to DAoC.

Unfortunately, in Draegan's case, you just can't fix stupid.

Oh lord.

What they should of done was exactly what Paelos did.  Transcribe some of the juicer bits, and then leave up the full video interview.  It's better for traffic anyway.  Let's people cut and paste your website's link and text.  It builds traffic.

This is a new game, and if this is their only press they are doing right now, they are better served by parsing data better.  Unfortunely gameinformer was too lazy to present their interviews in a decent way.

Most people don't have time to listen to a poorly conducted interview that is over 15 minutes long.  (Devs love talking about their game, especially for the first time and they aren't bored by the press/convention circuit yet.  You need to attempt to steer the conversation to what people want to hear.  Game mechanics, setting, and other details.)  What they should of done was a series of dev blogs exactly like Arenanet did early on.  Anet did it masterfully.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
The problem I had with that interview was they dragged the one hot chick they've hired to do Mob creation up there (because she's hot), and they talk about how awesome and high-fiving the game is while they are doing the interview. At no point do they show gameplay, even though it's under testing. They just TELL you about the systems in a round table. It's useless to describe something when I know for a fact you have people testing it. They talk about it during the interview about what happened during their testing. Why don't you SHOW us?

Oh I know, because most of this shit is actually pie-in-the-sky stuff right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 30, 2012, 11:38:00 AM
I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.

The only thing awesome about this game is the Michael Bay style explosion we will see at the inevitable train wreck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 30, 2012, 01:08:31 PM
I watched both videos. Here are the key points they made.
[snip]

Ah, thanks for that.  

I dunno, this is turning into a bit of a head scratcher for me.  Stuff like small numbers of attacks and being less about skill rotation sound good to me.  Stuff like being "less about the numbers" and dungeon content changing depending on what classes you bring sounds like they don't know their audience.

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that locational effects are supposed to be important.  Is this not still a tab targeting based game?  Because landing AoE is always a bigger pain in the ass in those games, and the main benefit for going tab targeting (frees the mouse to access the skillbar) seems to be limited if they're reducing the number of available abilities.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 03:04:05 PM
What they really seem to be talking about is this kind of combat:

Melee advance towards targets. Ranged first at the advancing melee. Melee decide to use block to continue the advance, which drains stamina. Healer for melee tosses healing crap on ground. Mage for melee tosses fire crap on ground. Melee moves into said ground effects which procs new skills like FIRE ATTACK and REGEN STRIKE or something.

Supposedly the monsters will counter you by trying to CC your advance, which you can break with stamina. However, you would then lose a lot of your stamina to continue blocking for that fight, so you would have to close quickly. Also, warriors that are out of stamina can switch weapons on the fly to ranged, but they wouldn't be nearly as effective. Likewise for ranged who find themselves in close combat.

They talk a lot about synergies and tactics, but it depends on two things: 1 - The enemy AI, and 2 - Whether or not most of this makes it beyond testing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Seems like Zenimax or Anet stole ideas from each other.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 30, 2012, 06:20:59 PM
They talk a lot about synergies and tactics, but it depends on two things: 1 - The enemy AI, and 2 - Whether or not most of this makes it beyond testing.

Also critical is how players react (if at all) to these proposed systems. I've seen a lot of devs talk about the tactics and synergies in their game, then the players come through screaming, "POUR ON THE DAMAGE! DPS IS THE ONLY STAT THAT COUNTS!".

Skyrim had lots of tactics I could use; it was often just easier to sneak attack arrow for a one-shot kill every mob in a dungeon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 09:01:03 PM
That describes every game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 31, 2012, 05:28:51 AM
Skyrim pretty much rules out finesse on the highest difficulty. You either make a nearly indestructible tank shrouded in elemental resists with the armor cap, or you make a duel-wielder and use the elemental fury shout to literally hit stuff 30 times in the space of 2-3 seconds.

I went with the former, my cousin made the latter. When he runs into an ancient dragon, if he gets breathed on he near instantly dies, but the instant that thing lands? BZZZZZZZZZZZT, dead, in 4-5 seconds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 31, 2012, 07:51:56 AM

The only thing awesome about this game is the Michael Bay style explosion we will see at the inevitable train wreck.

Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2012, 07:58:06 AM
The reason the game is a probably train-wreck is they aren't really innovating combat. They are slapping a new coat of paint on the old rules.

The first thing players will bitch about will be the lack of cast bars. The idea that players want visual effects to dictate action only works when you control the action from a single focal point of your screen. When action is controlled via an action bar, instead of mouse clicking, you are putting those two methods at odds. You eye must be drawn both to the actions and to the activity on the screen. This creates a schism in the playerbase, because some people can handle that transition and some can't. See: Every single "don't stand in the fire" fail in history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 31, 2012, 08:43:58 AM
I think they're going to discover that the hardcore geeks want those numbers. I predict early whining in beta will center on cast bars as well as the lack of numbers and/or a combat log. Also, they'll want the gear score on their armor so they can begin their number crunching.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
Thing is, I can't really blame them anymore. I used to believe that hiding things the numbers from people was better. SWTOR showed me that it doesn't matter when the designers don't even know how the game is supposed to work.

You can't pretend that it's not about numbers when the entire game is based on them. In a toolbar game, where skill is reduced to simple reactions, trying to convince me that it's not about numbers and not about rotations is frankly silly. I can make the argument it's very much NOT about the numbers in Skyrim, even though the game has a large portion of them, because the combat is so radically different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 31, 2012, 11:24:00 AM
Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!

No crystal ball involved. I have the psychic ability to see through bullshit and hype.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 31, 2012, 11:44:47 AM
Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!

No crystal ball involved. I have the psychic ability to see through bullshit and hype.

Didn't keep you from joining Bob.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 31, 2012, 11:59:09 AM
Didn't keep you from joining Bob.

I joined as part of a merger. I didn't like the idea, and didn't stay very long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 31, 2012, 01:06:21 PM
Didn't you buy Darkfall and other such wondrous games? :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
Darkfall had some promise. Just way too much to fix for a little dev studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 31, 2012, 03:19:40 PM
The reason the game is a probably train-wreck is they aren't really innovating combat. They are slapping a new coat of paint on the old rules.

The first thing players will bitch about will be the lack of cast bars. The idea that players want visual effects to dictate action only works when you control the action from a single focal point of your screen. When action is controlled via an action bar, instead of mouse clicking, you are putting those two methods at odds. You eye must be drawn both to the actions and to the activity on the screen. This creates a schism in the playerbase, because some people can handle that transition and some can't. See: Every single "don't stand in the fire" fail in history.

I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 31, 2012, 04:10:24 PM
Oh, you're one of those fuckwits.

Also WAP, you're not allowed to  :uhrr: on the same page you wrote:

Darkfall had some promise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 04:22:22 PM
It did. Sandbox-y world, skill-based advancement, useful crafting, open PvP, ownership of cities, etc. It was just crippled by its reputation as a hardcore PvP game and the facemeltingly long and arduous grind to usefulness. I would absolutely play a sequel (or Darkfall 2010*, which is supposed to be a complete overhaul and is, as you might infer from the name, over 2 years late).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2012, 05:49:05 PM
I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.
And fucktards like you that despise the only success in the entire industry are the sort I don't want to share my time, energy, and forums with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 31, 2012, 06:34:14 PM
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/podcasts/archive/2012/05/31/special-edition-podcast-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

Podcast with Firor and Sage - answering questions from community.  Some interesting stuff, but a lot of repeat info if you have been paying attention up to now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2012, 07:33:30 PM
I think they're going to discover that the hardcore geeks want those numbers. I predict early whining in beta will center on cast bars as well as the lack of numbers and/or a combat log. Also, they'll want the gear score on their armor so they can begin their number crunching.

Broken record that I am on the title, but CoH tried for a long time to hide the numbers. Players bitched incessantly, reverse engineered the numbers, made assumptions about how things worked and generally unhid the numbers as much as they could.

They also uncovered systems that weren't working correctly that can only be seen when you understand how the numbers should work.

Plus if you don't show the numbers, then you have to use placeholders to describe what it is doing, like "weak" hold or "superior" damage. And then work out if those are referencing in absolute (i.e. superior damage is the best type of damage across all classes / archetypes) or relative (i.e. the superior damage of a Controller is less than the High damage of a Blaster) terms.

On the other hand, CoH unhid the numbers at some point, the math nerds cheered, business continued as usual. So a lot of work to unhide them for very little pay off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 31, 2012, 08:19:19 PM
Hiding the numbers on powers is also something that DAOC did and Firor's fingerprints are on that. It was a pretty dumb system, that was for example largely responsible for the fact that it took forever for the doublefrost math bug to be discovered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 01, 2012, 12:06:43 AM
Yea... "bug".  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 06:19:35 AM
I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.

While I do have an open disdain for a large portion of the WoW community, the SWTOR community was no better. Neither was the WAR community.

Because you have a toolbar based MMO that revolves around gearing and levels, just like all the other ones I listed, you won't get a magical united community. You will get the same shit you always get.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 01, 2012, 06:23:36 AM
Because you have a toolbar based MMO that revolves around gearing and levels, just like all the other ones I listed, you won't get a magical united community. You will get the same shit you always get.
You mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 01, 2012, 06:31:29 AM
They also uncovered systems that weren't working correctly that can only be seen when you understand how the numbers should work.
There are a lot of math geeks out there.  They're bound to reverse engineer things if they're invested enough.  (See my ever-popular example of SWG's incorrect tissue coefficients.)

I do like how CoH chose to do their numbers.  It's there if you want to dig into it, but it's not in-your-face.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 01, 2012, 06:39:45 AM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 01, 2012, 08:11:42 AM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.

Yeah, I don't think they are fucking around...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 01, 2012, 08:24:11 AM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 08:33:18 AM
My guess is that it's so abnormal they are hoping it will make National news?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 01, 2012, 09:34:21 AM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.

I haven't followed it closely, is there some government funding going into development? This reminds me of something 38 Studios would have done, where they were forced to hire too quickly in order to meet government targets (because the government wants you to be a jerb creator) as a condition of their loans, which in turn means a fully staffed marketing department before you actually need one, which in turn leads to shit like this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on June 01, 2012, 09:59:19 AM
Lookit that NOSE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 01, 2012, 10:29:02 AM
I can't.  She also has Prince Charles ears.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 01, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
The game is slated for 2013.  Seems a bit far off.  Who knows though, could be part of a decent marketing campaign regardless of the game's perception.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on June 01, 2012, 12:22:08 PM
That elf chick is funny.  Elves in TES are ugly as hell, imho, and it's like they tried to make a more "normal" elf chick, but left a liiiiitle hint of the ol' ugly.  For, uh, brand recognition.  Or something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 01:49:42 PM
Fucking elves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 01, 2012, 02:14:31 PM
Fucking elves.
But enough about Goldshire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on June 01, 2012, 02:34:33 PM
Seems like Zenimax or Anet stole ideas from each other.
They're similar with all that weapon swapping and skill set business. Much like WoW clones, I'm just wondering "if we have A already (and A does it well enough), and B doesn't add much, what's the point of B?" What I'm seeing here are... a few less weapon-dependent skills, more uses of your stamina bar, and a replacement of "no trinity" with "all pve content is solo-able".
So which banned poster under a new name are you?

I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.
You joined to defend a videogame against mean words? Do you have some connection to it or do you just overly empathize with commercial products (you seem like a tool either way)?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 01, 2012, 03:10:59 PM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.


Christ.....MOAR MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN, YEAAAAAAH like that baby.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on June 01, 2012, 03:15:16 PM
what a waste of money


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 01, 2012, 03:17:35 PM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.

I haven't followed it closely, is there some government funding going into development? This reminds me of something 38 Studios would have done, where they were forced to hire too quickly in order to meet government targets (because the government wants you to be a jerb creator) as a condition of their loans, which in turn means a fully staffed marketing department before you actually need one, which in turn leads to shit like this.

Pretty sure they don't have any public money to burn through.  According to their FAQ (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/faq.html) they've had a pretty huge budget from day one.  Personally, I think this big E3 display is a signal that to them 2013 might mean something like spring 2013, not Christmas.  If you think about it, they opened a customer support center in Ireland over a year ago (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_ireland_facility.html) - I think they are closer to actually firing this thing up than they are letting on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 02, 2012, 01:40:46 PM

Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.


I bet that group of artists are just fine with it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2012, 02:51:35 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 03, 2012, 03:37:51 AM
It's not "groupthink." It's the fact that it appears to everyone to be a terrible idea for a number of extremely obvious reasons, not the least of which is that it's an Elder Scrolls branded game that has nothing to do with what makes Elder Scrolls good.

A Star Wars MMO at least ostensibly has something that appeals to Star Wars fans. The fact that this sounds terrible is not the problem, I'm not even sure if it sounds terrible. The problem is the same problem as "Quake 4 - Now a Facebook farming sim!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2012, 05:20:47 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)
For me at least, SWTOR was just KOTOR 3 that happened to have a monthly fee. The game was good enough for me in that regard; I never had any intention of actually playing it like an MMO.

On the other hand, there was a lot of rage around here over WAR once it went live so I'm not sure what your point is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2012, 05:46:37 AM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on June 03, 2012, 08:21:01 AM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?

It is the Elder Scrolls name.  If this was named literally ANYTHING else, the thread would have 25 replies and would've dropped off the front page.  This thread is a testament to the fact that a bunch of people around here feel pretty strongly about TES setting/IP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2012, 11:50:41 AM
You would see a similar reaction if they made a Halo MMO with toolbar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 03, 2012, 09:42:02 PM
You would see a similar reaction if they made a Halo MMO with toolbar combat.

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/hallo-mmo-2.jpg)

That's exactly what Microsoft had been making years ago. Fortunately they had the sense to cancel it where Bethesda (as the publisher) doesn't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 04, 2012, 10:33:26 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)

All of the games you named (well, the first two) were flawed more in execution than concept. This game, by contrast, is falling down from the very basic foundational designs they've laid out.

Also where are these WAR fanboys I missed? I thought that game was positively eviscerated here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 04, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
Actually we all (most of us anyway) rather liked it until we hit level 12. After that, yes, positively eviscerated is exactly true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on June 04, 2012, 02:41:09 PM
God, I loved WAR from 1-11.  I mean hard to remember any negatives at that point.  Good newbie zones, fun PQ's, appealing quests and of course the first PVP map.  But ho boy when you out-level Nordenwatch the fun made a nosedive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 04, 2012, 02:41:49 PM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?
WAR people got upset when they got out of Tier 1 and poor design decisions for the later game materialized.  Same with AoC.  The early game was good for both.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the good bits in an otherwise shit game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 04, 2012, 03:31:00 PM
God, I loved WAR from 1-11.  I mean hard to remember any negatives at that point. 

Combat was terribly bland for me. From level 1 to x, that didn't change. I really, really hated WAR. Not that it matters, but that was the one big negative for me. Incredibly boring, slowish, unresponsive, unsatisfying combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 04, 2012, 04:18:32 PM
Funny, because it's the only PvP game I've ever enjoyed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 04, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on June 05, 2012, 12:28:46 AM
Eh, I agree that WAR had plenty of responsiveness issues... it certainly felt more sluggish than WOW, even though I played on a west coast US WOW server at the time, and I do recall instances where enemy positions did not sync with where they were on the screen (WOW did/does this a lot better). It also had the (diku-standard) overpowered/underpowered classes thing; I should know, I played both an ironbreaker and an engineer. Oh yeah, and the stabbiness of Tor Anroc (and I say this as a class with at least 2-3 ways of punting people into lava) / Mourkain Temple (aka whoever has the best ping/speed gets the first pickup and wins 90% of the time).

That said, it was a competent implementation of diku pvp. The rest of the game though... well...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 05, 2012, 04:44:20 AM
Being a Swordmaster helped combat the sluggishness since they already were.  (Later they did improve the responsiveness, but enh, WAR.)  Morkain was 90% Chaos getting the ball first due to placement.  That was the map I hated most, even if some of my most impressive moments came from it.
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.
Hah!  I laughed hard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on June 05, 2012, 07:55:52 AM
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 05, 2012, 08:02:54 AM
I'm weak to rainbows, but immune to PvE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 05, 2012, 10:01:31 AM
I actually thought WAR was good 1-21; Tier 2 was cool because you started to see keep sieges and more world PVP and the BGs weren't utter shit. It wasn't until Tier 3 that a) the BGs went to hell (Tor Anroc), b) the leveling curve became REALLY steep and c) there wasn't actually enough level-appropriate PVE content so you had to grind either PQs or BGs in order to advance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 05, 2012, 11:43:12 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)

Huh. I seem to recall AoC and WAR being met with multiple JDAM airstrikes and general eye rolling, especially once the hype train met reality. And exploded.

*shrug*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2012, 01:07:40 PM
I actually thought WAR was good 1-21; Tier 2 was cool because you started to see keep sieges and more world PVP and the BGs weren't utter shit. It wasn't until Tier 3 that a) the BGs went to hell (Tor Anroc), b) the leveling curve became REALLY steep and c) there wasn't actually enough level-appropriate PVE content so you had to grind either PQs or BGs in order to advance.

Tier 3 had some really good battlegrounds. Unfortunately, no one queued for them because they required thought and strategy and weren't just spam knockbacks for free XP LCD design fuckvilles. I swear, I still want to skullfuck the guy that came up with Tor Anroc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 05, 2012, 01:09:45 PM
I'm still waiting for a BG that is just a free for all death match with 10 people in it.  Why do we have to do team oriented shit all the time?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on June 05, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
It's also four years later. For me, this is maybe an acceptable lead up to a game in 2008. But it's not in 2012. It's just fucking not. I played Rift for a month just now. It was great. A great game. A better WoW than WoW. And I unsubbed because I can't do that game anymore. I can't. And TESO is shaping up to be that game again. Why would I get excited about this? It's fucking 2012 and we're all still scrambling (besides GW2) to emulate a game that came out in 2004. Something is desperately wrong here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 05, 2012, 01:57:16 PM
The entire video gaming industry has become far too risk-averse. That's why a guy in his basement was able to develop a multi-million revenue game about mining blocks. I blame this on 3 elements:

1 - Publishers are still struggling with online distribution methods and fear the medium. They blame piracy for products failing, so they put in preventative measures that only screw over actual customers.
3 - Investors are obsessed with the "Gold Rush" mentality. One game strikes it rich doing something, therefore all games like that will be huge successes.
3 - Sizzle has become more important than steak. Blame graphics, PR bullshit, and god-complexes amongst developers. Even the AAA companies can't make money on their AAA titles because they can't manage overhead at all. Also, Developers are man-children who will blow through available cash at a horrifying rate because they can't reconcile vision with reality.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 05, 2012, 03:14:58 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 05, 2012, 04:38:20 PM
Bethesda have apparently released a teaser trailer for E3. It doesn't tell us anything about the game but it suggests their marketing is pretty bad as it's a terrible trailer. Tells you nothing about the game, no interesting visuals, no hint of an interesting storyline or setting. I did not feel at all teased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK57vfI97w

I mean, it might be a good game when it is finally released next year but they'd be better off holding back on the hype until they've got something interesting to show people even if it's just an enticing rendered sequence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 05, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
What the fuck is that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on June 05, 2012, 06:35:02 PM
Wow, usually I'm a sucker for a trailer, but that was really bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 05, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Where's the TES music theme?  That was bad, really poor branding.  It doesn't look like TES and it doesn't sound like TES. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 05, 2012, 07:53:12 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.

It's far from easy. But if you're insistent upon repackaging the same shit, it's impossible. That's the point. Without risk, there is no innovation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Severian on June 05, 2012, 08:34:08 PM
It seems a logo interrupted some people pensively waiting around for something interesting to happen.

Damn trailer, now I am as excited as they were.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 05, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Free to play within 6 months.
Fucking worthless IP in terms of current MMO stock of fantasy stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 12:15:18 AM
I wonder how Todd Howard feels about this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on June 06, 2012, 12:42:12 AM
I would venture to guess somewhere between "indifferent" and "annoyed" depending on how much he thinks TESO flopping would impact the overall TES brand.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 06, 2012, 02:06:59 AM
Even KOA Online would've been more attractive with the actiony combat than this 'safe and uncreative' take on the TES brand.
How did an IP go from single player sandbox with FPS view turn into a Third Person WoW-clone?
So much derp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 08:03:37 AM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.

Yeah, I wasn't really impressed with the E3 content yesterday.  The teaser trailer seems dumb.  I'm hoping it is a cut down version of something longer that makes a lot more sense.  The game graphics looked pretty good, though (aside from the incredible hulk orc), and it seems a lot of hands on people are describing the combat as action oriented - so, we'll see.  Maybe more will come out today.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2012, 09:33:35 AM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.

Minecraft was not easy. It's also not something a publisher would EVER put money into, because it can't be categorized. But it succeeded BECAUSE it's so different and it's executed well.

As for that trailer? WTF?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 10:04:31 AM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.


That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 06, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Bethesda have apparently released a teaser trailer for E3. It doesn't tell us anything about the game but it suggests their marketing is pretty bad as it's a terrible trailer. Tells you nothing about the game, no interesting visuals, no hint of an interesting storyline or setting. I did not feel at all teased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK57vfI97w

I mean, it might be a good game when it is finally released next year but they'd be better off holding back on the hype until they've got something interesting to show people even if it's just an enticing rendered sequence.

rogues look OP


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 10:26:41 AM
That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

Woops - I almost forgot my earlier oath to not be positive about this game until we've all seen a lot more of it!  I meant to just pass the article along, not *gasp* call it decent.  I hereby recind that compliment!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 10:46:39 AM
Yeah, why didn't you stick to your oath?

Seriously, if you put an excerpt and a link to an article that glorifies and narrates five minutes of gameplay of a MMO in the presence of its lead designer as if they were five minutes from the battle of Helm's Deep, and call it a decent article, you don't come out as passionate. You come out as obsessed. I feel bad for you, if this game sucks you will be so heartbroken.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 06, 2012, 11:26:23 AM
There's no IF. This project is doomed and I think the only people that recognize it in-house are the investors. They are just crossing their fingers they can get some of their costs back after release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 11:37:03 AM
Yeah, why didn't you stick to your oath?

Seriously, if you put an excerpt and a link to an article that glorifies and narrates five minutes of gameplay of a MMO in the presence of its lead designer as if they were five minutes from the battle of Helm's Deep, and call it a decent article, you don't come out as passionate. You come out as obsessed. I feel bad for you, if this game sucks you will be so heartbroken.

Your concern is heartwarming; I shall meditate upon it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on June 06, 2012, 12:08:57 PM
Found this E3 presser/interview by chance.   More fly-throughs.  Gave up listening to the interview so I have no idea if anything meaningful or interesting got mentioned.  Sorry. 


http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac (http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac/watch?v=lUZ-e2SkeMI&feature=player_embedded#!)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 06, 2012, 12:36:23 PM
There's no IF. This project is doomed and I think the only people that recognize it in-house are the investors. They are just crossing their fingers they can get some of their costs back after release.

Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

*shrug*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 06, 2012, 01:24:37 PM
This thing is being lambasted by the press, too.  It's not just us.  If the investors aren't keeping up on the news about the project and are ready to raise their concerns, then they deserve to lose their money when/if the whole things goes to crap.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 06, 2012, 01:56:40 PM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.


That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

" journadvertisingism" ? by mmorpg.com? Unbelievable :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2012, 02:46:10 PM
Found this E3 presser/interview by chance.   More fly-throughs.  Gave up listening to the interview so I have no idea if anything meaningful or interesting got mentioned.  Sorry. 


http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac (http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac/watch?v=lUZ-e2SkeMI&feature=player_embedded#!)

Fuck's sake. That looks better than SWTOR (which I still think looks like shit) and worse than Skyrim. Too bad for them, since the people who would want to play this game all expect it to look like... you know, Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 06, 2012, 02:46:51 PM
This thing is being lambasted by the press, too.  It's not just us.  If the investors aren't keeping up on the news about the project and are ready to raise their concerns, then they deserve to lose their money when/if the whole things goes to crap.

Most likely it's too late to pull their money. They've probably been told this as well. It's a sunk cost.

There's two ways to go with something like this. I believe they will salvage some dignity if they release it as a F2P product with some flashy microtrans system, and they tone down the hype. If they up the hype and go whole hog after the box cost + sub? It'll put SWTOR to absolute shame.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on June 06, 2012, 06:09:28 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did.

He copied Infiniminer and Dwarven Fortress.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pantastic on June 07, 2012, 09:04:51 AM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 07, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
The last video of an actual world didn't LOOK particularly bad, but I'm still highly skeptical as to how the game mechanics'll actually play out. Talking about how ~awesome~ it'll be is one thing, actually showing how it'll play in an actual play session is quite another.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 07, 2012, 10:04:24 AM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.

Setting the cash on fire is often better. Savings between now and a 2013 release, I can almost guarantee you it's going to cost them less than any return they will get upon completion less the variable costs of operation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pantastic on June 07, 2012, 10:13:51 AM
Savings between now and a 2013 release,

Oh, I didn't pay that much attention to details, I thought it was coming out sometime this year. It was more a general comment on investors trying to pull out than specific to ESO


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 07, 2012, 11:36:24 AM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.

You're right. The current investment capitol is gone.

That's no reason to give them *more*.

This goes well beyond games. The hallmark of good project management is to know when something has gone off the rails *And Do Something About It*. I can't think of many instances of when 'just push through and release it' had good results, and I can think of *lots* of instances when this destroyed the company's reputation (at a minimum. More often than not the whole house folds) let alone their ability to contract new work in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 07, 2012, 11:38:19 AM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 07, 2012, 02:40:02 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on June 07, 2012, 02:40:28 PM
That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

If you go to mmorpg.com for anything other than press releases or advertisements, you will always be disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if most of their reviews were written by publisher PR departments.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 07, 2012, 03:16:51 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

No. It'll be hot-gesture combat. You waggle your fingers into the Kinect or camera enabled Smart TV. The most convincing and closest to the pre-memorized somatic routine wins.  A giant panda graphic will appear, crushing your opponent in testament to your awesomeness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 07, 2012, 04:58:51 PM
I don't know, the gaming press seems pretty warm on the game to me

http://www.gamesradar.com/elder-scrolls-online-preview-just-another-mmo/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 07, 2012, 05:28:31 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



SKYRIM


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 07, 2012, 05:58:36 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



SKYRIM

Right. Cause favorites are far superior.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on June 07, 2012, 06:24:53 PM
Well it's at least interesting that multiple sources have said that the combat is somewhere between TERA and GuildWars2, GW2 itself being between TERA and WoW. So, hey, that's 1 thing!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 07, 2012, 09:35:33 PM
Lot of interviews from E3 - but this one is actually with Matt Firor.  I found it informative - his answers are more direct than Sage's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CDnR3e_zs7I


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on June 07, 2012, 09:57:58 PM
Right. Cause favorites are far superior.

Aiming a bow is far superior than hitting ` or possibly 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on June 07, 2012, 10:51:37 PM
Right. Cause favorites are far superior.

Aiming a bow is far superior than hitting ` or possibly 2.

Or even pressing 3 and then making sure the dude is in front of my before I set him on fire.  All of these things are, while possibly not brilliant, more fun that hot bar combat.  Favorites just switch the weapon (and I can use any fucking goddamn weapon I want).  Another thing about Skyrim combat?  No rotation for me.  I have no set pattern for how I attack, ever.  Totally spontaneous.  Cooldowns are a virtual non-factor.  I can skill up in anything I want to, just by doing it.  I can pick up anything in the environment, because who knows if that broken elf cranium might be worth something.

TESO will lack almost all of these things, PLUS it will look like ass in comparison.  It also won't let me break into people's houses and steal all the shit/murder the occupants.  I won't be able to use any cool mods, or mods that otherwise fix stupid issues.

In short, this game will have nothing to do with any other TES games other than the lore.  And guess what?  Fuck TES lore, that's what.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 08, 2012, 06:37:09 AM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



The Elder Scrolls series.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 07:55:04 AM
Lot of interviews from E3 - but this one is actually with Matt Firor.  I found it informative - his answers are more direct than Sage's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CDnR3e_zs7I

Good ole Pokket. Too many generic questions in that interview though.  But I did like the tidbit on warriors picking up a healing staff to heal.

I don't know, the gaming press seems pretty warm on the game to me

http://www.gamesradar.com/elder-scrolls-online-preview-just-another-mmo/

I'm ok with a game that is attempting to refine the public quest or event stuff that GW2 is attempting.  If this game is actually somewhere between tera and gw2 I will also be interested in this game.  As long as it's engaging and not WOW/RIFT/TSW ish.  I'm more interested in the game than I was initially.  The devs needs to stop talking about lore, world, quests and levels and start focusing on action combat, 3 factions and event questing.

Stop giving us Heroic Dungeons!  Lore!  Objects you can click to read story!  Achievements!  It's like a car salesman bragging about having anti-lock breaks and seat belts.

Also: $20 says they don't launch with a LFD feature and say it's about community, then attempt to launch one after.. maybe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on June 08, 2012, 07:57:05 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 08:04:35 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 08, 2012, 08:09:43 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single  game ever.

FYP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: zabuni on June 08, 2012, 08:11:27 AM
Sorry to reply late, but those giant advertisements on the buildings make a little more sense if you know where they are. That's a hotel right outside the Los Angeles Convention Center, and they usually put a poster for some game at every E3. A few years ago it was Final Fantasy 13.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2009/05/26/gigantic-final-fantasy-xiii-posters-confirms-2010-us-launch.htm

Still, it's a bit much so early on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 08, 2012, 08:35:35 AM
Sorry to reply late, but those giant advertisements on the buildings make a little more sense if you know where they are. That's a hotel right outside the Los Angeles Convention Center, and they usually put a poster for some game at every E3. A few years ago it was Final Fantasy 13.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2009/05/26/gigantic-final-fantasy-xiii-posters-confirms-2010-us-launch.htm

Still, it's a bit much so early on.

Cool...Welcome.

 :grin: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 09:48:02 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

The best "combat" game I've played is probably Just Cause 2 and the endless parachutes.

Skyrim wasn't bad though, and it's 10x as engaging as anything I've ever seen with a hotbar. I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time. I was very disappointing, but you overlook it for a while to see what it's about.

We've overlooked that reaction for 10 years now. Enough is enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sky on June 08, 2012, 09:51:49 AM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2012, 09:59:04 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.

Mount & Blade?

Why isn't someone making a MMO clone of it? It's just screaming for it,


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2012, 10:03:26 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.

Mount & Blade?

Why isn't someone making a MMO clone of it? It's just screaming for it,

Cause it doesn't have 12 million subscribers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Murgos on June 08, 2012, 10:10:28 AM
I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons?

The first MMO I ever played was UO.  Just pointing out that even not having hot bars/auto attack doesn't mean your combat it good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 08, 2012, 10:42:52 AM
Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time.

I don't remember ever feeling this way.  I was never a big FPS guy, though - maybe that's why?  I remember accidentally attacking a guard in EQ, lol - talk about a horrible realization.  DAOC, as I remember it, was very visceral, also; you could literally sprint up to an enemy and execute a combat style (even positional - IE backstab where you had to be actually at his back) in real time - I really don't get your gripe.  As Sky pointed out, your complaint would make more sense if you were mad about having to lock a target, rather than having to use hotbars...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 11:09:43 AM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.

Good point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 08, 2012, 11:59:31 AM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.

This. I like TERAs combat which is also technically hotbar combat. Even something like an FPS is really hotbar combat, where you're pressing 1-6 hotkeys to select abilities (weapons, grenades) to use. The difference is in the targeting. "Hot bar combat" isn't a great way to describe what I don't like about current MMO combat, but I don't think "tab-target combat" is especially clear either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 12:00:56 PM
I dislike combat where your skills are on a hotbar, you have to lock on target things or tab target, and the phrase "Global Cooldown" is used.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 12:10:57 PM
Everything has a global cooldown, in every game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2012, 06:47:23 PM
I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time. I was very disappointing, but you overlook it for a while to see what it's about.

We've overlooked that reaction for 10 years now. Enough is enough.
I come from a MUD background, where most of current-MMO combat mechanics have their roots. Auto-attack was a mechanism to show that your character could attack faster than you personally could type the word "attack", and the concept of a GCD was there for largely the same reason: to ensure fights didn't come down purely to who had the better combination of typing speed (or macro use) and internet connection. When I made the transition to MMOs the combat system wasn't some crazy huge shock. In fact as someone who likes turn-based RPGs the combat is pretty familiar. You don't click Fire2 and aim like an FPS in a Final Fantasy game, so I don't see why I should have to in an MMORPG. The general trend of making MMOs less RPG and more God of War is not really one I'm a fan of, particularly since I don't feel action games play well with kb+m (but I don't want to use a controller for gameplay then a kb+m for chatting, menus, etc. because it just feels clunky).

Now, that's just about MMOs in general; putting WoW-style combat (which I'm generally a fan of) into an Elder Scrolls game is pretty fucking stupid, just because it's a really strong departure from the franchise. I'd forgive them that if the game was skill-based instead of class based, but...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2012, 08:03:35 PM
Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time.

I don't remember ever feeling this way.  I was never a big FPS guy, though - maybe that's why?  I remember accidentally attacking a guard in EQ, lol - talk about a horrible realization.  DAOC, as I remember it, was very visceral, also; you could literally sprint up to an enemy and execute a combat style (even positional - IE backstab where you had to be actually at his back) in real time - I really don't get your gripe.  As Sky pointed out, your complaint would make more sense if you were mad about having to lock a target, rather than having to use hotbars...

I never felt like that either. Arcade combat always feels like a step back to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 08:13:31 PM
What threw me off about playing DaoC for the first time was the idea of Target Lock. Every other game I played let me swing/shoot whatever I was aiming at, even the games that had actual Target Locking mechanics like Mechwarrior 2.


The hotbar itself was a non-issue. The issue with hotbar combat is when you end up with 7 of them  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2012, 08:24:35 PM
Target Locking* (I do not like this term) is in almost all RPGs. You say "I shoot magic missile at the goblin" not "I shoot magic missile north" and hope it hits something. It's like a staple of RPGs, and I don't really see how it could come as a shock to anyone who played single player RPGs before getting into MMOs.

*Did DaoC have some weird system that only let you attack one thing at a time, or was it like WoW where you changed targets by clicking on a new mob? I've never played it but if it's the former than I rescind my original statement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2012, 08:28:57 PM
You could change targets, yes. And I agree with you on the targeting thing. One of the reasons I play RPGs is specifically because I want a layer of abstraction between my character and me. I want to tell my character, 'attack that guy', not aim at him manually. Skyrim and FO3/NV are good games but I don't enjoy them because of the combat, I'd be just as happy if not happier with them if they had MMO hotbar/targetlock combat (sacrilege, I know.) M&B is the only one I've played where I feel like the different combat actually adds anything really.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 08:30:48 PM
It was like WoW.


Every other RPG I had played was essentially turn based, so the idea of selecting a target made sense in that context. MMO's despite their best efforts at times, are not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on June 08, 2012, 08:39:39 PM
One of the reasons I play RPGs is specifically because I want a layer of abstraction between my character and me. I want to tell my character, 'attack that guy', not aim at him manually. Skyrim and FO3/NV are good games but I don't enjoy them because of the combat, I'd be just as happy if not happier with them if they had MMO hotbar/targetlock combat (sacrilege, I know.)

That's the difference (between people) it seems. I played WoW for a good 3 years and never felt there was anything 'wrong' with tab-target, but by now I am sick of it. Nowadays it feels gamey, stale and something that is kept out of tradition or inertia rather than being a mechanic which improves the game.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 08, 2012, 08:47:32 PM
A hotbar is different from a keyboard shortcut. The key point about a hotbar is that it is an actual bar, as in an onscreen UI element, usually because you have a million abilities and you need to actually look at the icons to see cooldowns.

Sure, in an FPS you can press 1-10 to swap weapons and sometimes this will make a bar appear but you don't need to be looking at the bar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 09:15:49 PM
I should have prefaced my DAOC reaction comment for people that didn't grow up on RPGs or tabletop games. I very much dislike the idea of turn-based RPG number combat because of the artificial rules and constraints.

Whereas I love the combat of Skyrim, Jedi Knight, and ME1 because they have RPG elements without the stoppage.

And yet, I should add, I feel exactly the reverse about strategy games. I can't stand real time strategy maps, but I love the turn-based models.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 09:19:07 PM
It's only an issue when you end up with 7 bars though.

Like in Mechwarrior 2 (3456 and beyond), you would group your weapon systems into fire groups (which could then be fired individually, or all at once, or in any combination in between), each weapon type had its own cooldown/reload times, you had armor/damage sectors, heat management, your speed, possibly your jump jet management, this is all part of the game interface. It's really not that far removed from MMO hotbar combat in that regard.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 08, 2012, 09:44:17 PM
A hotbar is different from a keyboard shortcut. The key point about a hotbar is that it is an actual bar, as in an onscreen UI element, usually because you have a million abilities and you need to actually look at the icons to see cooldowns.

Sure, in an FPS you can press 1-10 to swap weapons and sometimes this will make a bar appear but you don't need to be looking at the bar.

Plenty of FPS games (especially on consoles) have HUD elements with buttons to select weapons/abilities that do not fade. The hotbar itself isn't what makes MMO combat shitty.

You don't need to be looking at the bar in most MMOs either. Sure, some MMOs (SWTOR) you really need to be staring at the hotbar to see when abilities are ready to use, but it's not really the case for WoW especially with the default-UI power aura notifications. The combat is still pretty stale for me, and it has nothing to do with the bars.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on June 09, 2012, 06:01:19 AM
I think the problem is that a one armed man with 2 fingers can easily win at Tab123 combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 09, 2012, 08:34:31 AM
I should have prefaced my DAOC reaction comment for people that didn't grow up on RPGs or tabletop games. I very much dislike the idea of turn-based RPG number combat because of the artificial rules and constraints.

Whereas I love the combat of Skyrim, Jedi Knight, and ME1 because they have RPG elements without the stoppage.
My tastes are almost the complete opposite; I like Skyrim despite the combat, never played JK, and was too turned off by the fact that ME1 was a glorified FPS to make it more than halfway through. The VATS system largely saved Fallout 3/NV for me; without those I would be pretty awful and probably wouldn't have finished them either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 09, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
I can deal with FPS-ish combat a lot easier when it involves guns, to the point where I actually liked the combat in ME2/ME3. But not with swords.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on June 10, 2012, 03:26:30 AM
My tastes are almost the complete opposite; I like Skyrim despite the combat, never played JK, and was too turned off by the fact that ME1 was a glorified FPS to make it more than halfway through. The VATS system largely saved Fallout 3/NV for me; without those I would be pretty awful and probably wouldn't have finished them either.

You're sick!

Not meaning any offense and neither mean to glorify FPS (I suck at those), but I do hope the market splits up enough to cater to both tastes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on June 10, 2012, 05:29:40 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.

I wonder why it is that MMOs can feel so stale for having stuck with core mechanics while FPS titles (which arguably haven't moved as far forward as MMOs over the same time frame) can still feel relatively fresh and fun. Time taken to "complete" a MMO versus FPS might have something to do with it, of course.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 10, 2012, 06:20:35 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.
The roots were wolf3d/doom, and I think the main thing has been to add to the control schemes while not makin it necessarily more complex to actually use. I can't really go back and play wolf3d or doom these days without noticing that it is clunky.

The only change I really do not agree with (or disagree with at all, really), has been the addition of a cover system, since it normally takes away control for a few seconds, and selects the wrong target to cover behind too often.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on June 10, 2012, 09:51:58 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.

Vehicles?

I think Neal Stephenson in that clang kickstarter video got it right. If you have a virtual world, interesting physics and immediate feedback to player actions the game can have an innate fun. And as a result making more complex environments to have the same fun in is fine. It's the action RPG model and probably going to become dominant.

It doesn't work quite so well on MMO's because the physics is either hackable or simplified to avoid killing the server, because lag means player actions are not quite as immediate or target position so exact, and because they tend to have a slower paced, party tactical focus. That's why your character tends to have lots of situational powers and thus needs a hot-bar whereas that many buttons would just slow and distract the action RPG game. I expect this approach to continue to retreat though, servers and net infrastructure keep improving and it's too "slow" for the console generation.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 10, 2012, 10:15:22 PM
I wonder why it is that MMOs can feel so stale for having stuck with core mechanics while FPS titles (which arguably haven't moved as far forward as MMOs over the same time frame) can still feel relatively fresh and fun.

I would argue that very few FPS games feel "fresh." However they do feel fun, because the mechanics of FPS games are pretty enjoyable.

The mechanics of MMOs by comparison are not very enjoyable - fighting the same enemies over and over using the some rotation of abilities, the level design is completely irrelevant, the mobs barely do anything, etc. The whole idea of the tank class in MMOs is to make combat as dull and predictable as possible by ensuring that fights go exactly the way players determine and mobs display zero autonomy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on June 10, 2012, 11:26:33 PM

The mechanics of MMO's are just a foundation for interesting group dynamics and the satisfaction of precise execution.

The whole idea of the tank class in MMOs is to make combat as dull and predictable as possible by ensuring that fights go exactly the way players determine and mobs display zero autonomy.

... not really, if anything WoW almost went too far by making raid mobs have far too much capability. If anything it's FPS games that have the dumb mobs and no real diversity of mechanics to killing them because they're just target dummies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 11, 2012, 02:21:57 AM
That again, depends entirely on the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on July 18, 2012, 07:56:36 AM
Here is a new interview with Matt Firor:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-17-the-elder-scrolls-online-reinventing-a-franchise-in-an-online-world

Quote
Q: Do you see this as something all the Skyrim fans are going to play, or is it more like you just want to create an MMO and it happens to be using Elder Scrolls lore? Who's the audience?

Matt Firor: We just want to make a good game and let people who want to play it, play it. It is an online game. MMO is a tired expression. It is an online RPG and we designed it to be a great game. People who like other Elder Scrolls games will probably want to try it, but people who play other MMOs like WoW or Star Wars are also going to want to try it too. So if it's not a good game, no one is going to want to play it. First and foremost, we want to make sure the game is sticky and fun, and that was our first priority. If we do that, all of our other questions are answered.

250 people working on the game right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2012, 08:17:54 AM
I give the interviewer credit, as he asked the right question right out of the box.

Quote
Q: As soon as the game was announced, the biggest concern for Elder Scrolls fans was "how can they be taking this online? They are missing the point of what Elder Scrolls is!"...What was the conversation like internally with Bethesda about taking this property online?

Matt Firor: You said the thing that is the most important. It is the franchise that we are taking online, not the single-player game. The single-player games are still the single-player games. We're taking the license and the franchise online and doing something with it that hasn't been done before, much like the Elder Scrolls novels

Yeah, there's a solid comparison. I bet you this game does as well as those novels, too. Let me take a look and see how those are selling. Hmm, one from 2009 is #17,252 on the books bestseller list. One from 2011 is #35,625. The fucking Skyrim GUIDE (not a novel, not a story, a GUIDE to a single player game) is #421 on the books list.

Quote
Q: Does Todd have any kind of say in game design choices, or is it all you and he doesn't offer suggestions?

Matt Firor: He's made it clear that this is an online RPG and he is not an online RPG developer. We need to make the decisions that we need to make.

Short answer, Todd doesn't want anything to do with you fuckers establishing this game as canon lore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 18, 2012, 08:21:53 AM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on July 18, 2012, 08:43:37 AM
Quote
We're taking the license and the franchise online and doing something with it that hasn't been done before

Is he claiming the game itself will do things that haven't been done before or just that this game will be doing something new with the franchise/brand?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2012, 09:07:32 AM
The latter. This game isn't going to be breaking any ground in the MMO genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2012, 11:58:58 AM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Furry sex danger level: orange


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on July 18, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Furry sex danger level: orange

Tiger suit orange or orangutan suit orange?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2012, 05:17:54 AM
Since I'm pretty sure there were cat people but not ape people in TES, I'd go with Tiger.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 19, 2012, 07:03:58 AM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on July 19, 2012, 07:59:25 AM
Since I'm pretty sure there were ... not ape people in TES...

Imga. (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Imga)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2012, 11:38:30 AM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:

I'm going home.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 19, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
I'd expect that from an Imga.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on July 22, 2012, 07:04:21 AM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Assuming you're not being facetious yes, they do. Naturally, they're pretty terrible. I believe the 2009 one was written by some dude who had no connection to the series at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 22, 2012, 10:51:43 AM
I both had no idea until Paelos mentioned it, and I was adding in the joke that, much like the novels, it wasn't going to attract the attention of Elder Scrolls fans.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 04, 2012, 12:02:48 PM
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-09-18-bethesda-go-anywhere-do-anything

An article from the marketing VP over at Bethesda. Normally you get PR speak, but here's my favorite quote in the whole damn thing.

Quote
In one sense it does give us a sense of confidence in terms of people being aware of the Elder Scrolls," he says, "but we recognise that, while there are certainly a number of things about Elder Scrolls Online that share a commonality with Skyrim - setting, tone, themes, very basic things like races and exploring and being able to go where you want - it's also a very different kind of game. There are things that you can get away with and pull off in a single player game that you simply can't do in a multiplayer game.

Part of what makes a Fallout or a Skyrim great is that we can custom craft the entire experience to be about you. There's no game balancing issues, like how are you versus this other person; there is no other person... Nobody else can screw with your experience. With an MMO, that changes to the nth degree. We now have to worry about if you found that sword, how does that sword change your relationship with everybody else in the world. And what you can do in PvP, and how much you can sell that for, and all of those different things are a huge shift.

Even the PR guy has to admit they've taken a left turn here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: brellium on October 04, 2012, 01:28:19 PM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:

I'm going home.
So going the Lusty Argonian Maid route.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 22, 2012, 04:07:53 PM
Ton of new articles out today, following some sort of preview event.

Interesting stuff.  Here's one that has a lot of info, but there are many more:

http://tamrielfoundry.com/2012/10/eso-media-event/

Edit to add this link - it has a nice clean list of most of the new info:

http://acolytesguild.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/elder-scrolls-online-preview/

It almost sounds like the devs listened to some of the criticism and refocused their efforts to appease the fan base.  Inconceivable!!

Some Highlights:

 - Megaserver - everyone is on the same server.  They manage RVR by having "campaigns" or versions of Cyrodiil that your character(s) is tied to.  You and everyone in that campaign are persistently at war with each other.  It sounds like a very sophisticated kind of instancing.

 - Combat - it seems likey they have continued to tweak the combat to be more action oriented.  There is soft targetting, but you can, optionally, lock your target in.  You use the mouse buttons to swing main weapon, and block, and a combination of those two will trigger a shield bash or something equivalent if you don't have  a shield.  Still lots of talk about combos, and reactions, etc.  Reviewers all sound more positive than the stuff we heard in May.

 - Graphics - none of the complaints we heard about graphics from the early articles seem to be present.  The screenshots look pretty awesome, imo.

Overall, it sounds like these guys are pulling out all the stops.  It makes SWTOR seem very low budget/rushed in comparison.  Well that's my perception.  I'm a silly fanboy, though.

Cheers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on October 22, 2012, 04:37:48 PM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on October 22, 2012, 05:22:58 PM

Quote
We’ll never have to close shards because they are empty, and there will never be server queues.

 :awesome_for_real:

I am interested in their claims that the game will put you in instances of zones alongside people you normally group with, or whatever.  Given that I usually avoid other people like the plague, does that mean I'll eventually get my own instance of each zone all to myself?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 22, 2012, 06:47:33 PM
Hah, if they fail, they deserve to.
This MMO has no reason to exist. Warning signs already there. People weren't asking for this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on October 22, 2012, 07:08:10 PM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.

I think this is supposed to go live next year, is it not?

Combat is really the only thing I noticed there that jumped out at me as encouraging.

Not sure how I feel about the targeting system: I am beyond bored with tab targeting at this point, and this sounds like a half step away from that.  So, on the one hand, great that they're at least moving away... but on the other hand, I can't help but be worried that this is still basically tab targeting just dolled up to look like something else.  I hope that it won't do more harm than good in the service of looking kind of slightly more superficially similar to a game is fundamentally quite different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 23, 2012, 01:07:27 AM
(http://www.jamietrinca.co.uk/uploads/1134695493_73.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 23, 2012, 07:02:30 AM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.

Looks like they are using a good deal of models and such from skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on October 23, 2012, 08:32:38 PM
Well, the good thing about this is no one is going to be disappointed.

Except maybe blackwulf, but if we all give him a group-hug I am sure he'll get over it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 23, 2012, 08:49:23 PM
Very sweet - yes, I will take any hugs that are sent my way!

Also -

Here's an interview with Matt Firor that covers a lot of the info regarding megaserver, combat, pvp, etc.: http://mmohuts.com/videos/elder-scrolls-online-reveal-interview


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on October 24, 2012, 01:51:39 AM
Who art thou, blackwulf? :headscratch:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 24, 2012, 06:48:15 AM
The combat does sound like they listened to the people who thought tab-target was spitting in the face of the franchise.

I'm not sure how much they can overhaul that, though. In the first round of information they were pimping ability synergies. Can you do both? We'll see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on October 24, 2012, 07:17:06 AM
Except maybe blackwulf, but if we all give him a group-hug I am sure he'll get over it.
He can suffer.  No group-hugs from me!  Muahahaha.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on October 24, 2012, 12:28:14 PM
Official community site is up. This is new, isn't it?

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/

EDIT: (No it's not)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on October 25, 2012, 08:19:59 AM
It's a time portal to mmo promo sites from 2004

enh, fuckit. this game ain't even worth making fun of anymore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 25, 2012, 08:31:39 AM
I'm waiting for a video of the combat system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on October 25, 2012, 12:23:06 PM
I'm waiting for a video of the combat system.

It'll be one of those things like when you look at Tera's mass pvp and have all those feelings about Why You Don't Do This Anymore™ dredged up.

Some real thin-slicing stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 26, 2012, 09:37:56 PM
All right, so my level of excitement for this game has gone through some phases.  When I first read about it in the leaked Game Informer article, I was pretty stoked.  Then E3 came, and no one was super impressed by what they saw.  Then 5 months of silence from Zenimax Online.  My level of excitement was waning to record low levels.

Then this recent hands on demonstration event occurred.  I know you guys don't follow all the news about this game like some of us do, and I can understand your underwhelmed attitude - but if you look at some of the reviews from the people that went to this hands on event with an open mind, you might find your interest picking up.

One example is this podcast - it's 2 hours long.  I didn't think I would listen to the whole thing, but I turned it on while I was catching up on some grading and it was actually really interesting.

http://elderscrollsotr.mymiddleearth.com/2012/10/26/episode-43-hands-on-with-eso/

Some points they make that I hadn't heard before:

- The guy is a hard core Skyrim player (self described) and he says it felt like Skyrim, only better.  He makes a comment about going back to Skyrim and being annoyed that it isn't TESO.

- Tons of exploring, and no quest hubs - massive (their words) areas to explore

- They claim the graphics look even better in motion and that they are better than Skyrim.

- One of the other guys, who was also at the hands on, is a GW2 player and he addresses a lot of the comparisons between the two MMOs.  I won't go into all the details, but it was interesting that his perception was that, yes, they do have some similar systems (weapon based skills, synergies) but the TESO ones were far more sophisticated and in depth - he made the comparison of elementary school vs. college. (or something like that)

It goes on and on - character development, animations, etc.  It all was very positive, and these guys sound genuine.  Now, of course, they could be shills.  Yes, all the other people invited to this event and writing good reviews could be shills.  I just think that someone would say something negative - can you really buy all those guys off?  I mean like 40+ people from various websites and guilds?

Anyway, my excitement level is rising again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on October 27, 2012, 05:11:45 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 27, 2012, 05:38:12 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.

I get that, and I agree - but they had people there from Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on October 27, 2012, 07:47:09 AM
Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

All these people want to be invited back and what they see now can change substantially between then and launch. Plus its a studio with a lot of vocal fans. So comments are unlikely to be negative.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on October 27, 2012, 12:04:17 PM
I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.

"Lies" is a strong word, but I hang out with too many fringe weirdos to put any weight behind the "everyone who was there says it so it must be true" gestalt argument.  Tell me what the game concepts are, show me what the graphics look like, but don't expect me to believe that it's all great just because some guy I've never met says he thinks they're better than Skyrim.

To be clear, I don't think the game sounds horrible (aside from shitting all over the idea of what the Elder Scrolls is about, which is totally fine if we get an awesome game out of it) but it does sound generic, unless there's something really groundbreaking announced in that podcast.  That's not an automatic fail, there are plenty of people out there who want another generic MMO.  But that means it does ultimately all come down to the implementation.  And I can't evaluate that at this point.  No amount of guys saying "no really, it's gonna be awesome, trust me" is going to change the fact that the game systems aren't finalized, the graphics aren't finished, and the content isn't complete.

I agree, it could be awesome.  I just have no proof that it will be (or won't be).  I guess we'll see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on October 27, 2012, 11:20:58 PM
Gamespy loves Warhammer Online. (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/759615p1.html)
So does Worthplaying. (http://worthplaying.com/article/2006/4/4/previews/32279/)
IGN was really stoked about the preview. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/01/31/warhammer-online-hands-on-2)  Then when it launched they gave it a 9/10. (http://ca.ign.com/games/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/pc-748723)
1up's writer was addicted within the first week. (http://www.1up.com/previews/warhammer-online)  Later reviews gave it a B (http://www.1up.com/reviews/warhammer-online-age-reckoning), seemingly because of faction balance issues more than anything else.
MMORPG previewer was having a blast. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/feature/2240/WAR-What-is-it-Good-For-Is-It-Worth-Your-Money.html) In review they gave it a 8.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/78).  Then a 7.5 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/115).  Then a 7.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/165). :why_so_serious:
X-play gave it a perfect score. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/29/g4s-x-play-reviews-warhammer-online/)
Massively was excited about it too. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/27/anti-aliased-war-huh-what-is-it-good-for/)
Gamespot gave it an 8.5 in review. (http://www.gamespot.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review-6198529/)
Thank god for news aggregators (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/180578/previews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/), preserving your little embarrassments (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/197527/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review/) for posterity.
And now I'm getting bored of this. (http://www.gamesradar.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-preview-brain-dump/)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 28, 2012, 11:41:54 AM
Gamespy loves Warhammer Online. (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/759615p1.html)
So does Worthplaying. (http://worthplaying.com/article/2006/4/4/previews/32279/)
IGN was really stoked about the preview. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/01/31/warhammer-online-hands-on-2)  Then when it launched they gave it a 9/10. (http://ca.ign.com/games/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/pc-748723)
1up's writer was addicted within the first week. (http://www.1up.com/previews/warhammer-online)  Later reviews gave it a B (http://www.1up.com/reviews/warhammer-online-age-reckoning), seemingly because of faction balance issues more than anything else.
MMORPG previewer was having a blast. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/feature/2240/WAR-What-is-it-Good-For-Is-It-Worth-Your-Money.html) In review they gave it a 8.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/78).  Then a 7.5 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/115).  Then a 7.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/165). :why_so_serious:
X-play gave it a perfect score. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/29/g4s-x-play-reviews-warhammer-online/)
Massively was excited about it too. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/27/anti-aliased-war-huh-what-is-it-good-for/)
Gamespot gave it an 8.5 in review. (http://www.gamespot.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review-6198529/)
Thank god for news aggregators (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/180578/previews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/), preserving your little embarrassments (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/197527/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review/) for posterity.
And now I'm getting bored of this. (http://www.gamesradar.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-preview-brain-dump/)

*edited this a bit, cause I had a reading comprehension failure.

I guess what struck me about all the recent positive reviews of the hands on demo for ESO is that this game was hammered by negative press in May.  I, being an optimist, focused on the few writeups that sounded good, but there were easily 5 negative writeups for every 1 positive.  So, I was rather suprised to see that every single write-up of the hands on demo was positive.  And they had people there from sources that gave them shit reviews in May (Massively for example.)

So, yeah - you can talk about how everyone loved Warhammer in their reviews, but this is a POST Warcraft and Warhammer world - and anyone who reviews a new game has those metrics and experiences as measuring points, also.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on October 28, 2012, 12:22:20 PM
Except WAR came out well post-WoW, still got glowing press early on, only to end up being much worse than WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2012, 12:40:02 AM
Personally I'd rather read about the game rather than a meta-discussion of fanboydom.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 29, 2012, 01:34:23 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.

I get that, and I agree - but they had people there from Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.

 :awesome_for_real:

You mean people like this guy here?

(http://i.imgur.com/kLHUo.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on October 29, 2012, 11:34:36 AM
I don't know when that image is going to get old, but I sure hope it's not any time soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 29, 2012, 04:37:19 PM
At this point the game needs more "show" and less "tell"

If they want people to buy into the new improved combat, show it to us. Show us the HUD. Show us the interactions. Don't show me cinematics. Don't tease.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on October 29, 2012, 10:01:43 PM
So, yeah - you can talk about how everyone loved Warhammer in their reviews, but this is a POST Warcraft and Warhammer world - and anyone who reviews a new game has those metrics and experiences as measuring points, also.

Warhammer launched after Age of Conan.

You clearly don't understand the unholy combination of fanboyism, patronage, and the developers ability to hid shit they don't want seen that produced the delightful little Warhammer surprise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on October 30, 2012, 06:20:17 AM
:(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2012, 07:55:43 AM
New Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Fr6VF_1LA

Quote
Check out our first video of The Elder Scrolls Online—a documentary-style introduction to the game, presented by members of The Elder Scrolls Online Development Team. This video covers the basics of ESO, including a first look at the game's Elder Scrolls-style combat system, massive PvP battles, Megaserver technology, exploration-based content, and much more.

This video is the first in a series of regular content and video updates on ElderScrollsOnline.com. Check the site regularly for more!

Not sure what I think of the graphics, they aren't bad but there's something about them.  They did an awful job showing off combat.  It's just mobs and pcs standing around swinging every 3 seconds.

We get a glimpse of "pvp" but it's a retarded setup of 100 people standing in a row and someone yelling charge.  Then everyone is just standing around doing nothing.  You do get a good look at animations and stuff which aren't great, but they aren't super bad either.  A lot of the spell/skill particle effects look terrible though.


In the end:
I like the world detail and graphics.
"Mega server" idea looks cool.
Combat Animations and effects look awful.
Combat itself looks like shit even if it's "action-y".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 08:00:24 AM
Looks good to me. Seems clear it isn't Hero engine. See all those toons on screen at once? I like the graphics too.maybe it just isn't your taste, Draegan.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: veredus on November 08, 2012, 08:12:08 AM
I thought the graphics for the most part looked pretty good at least but the animations were a little painful to watch. Hopefully that gets fixed/changed. Combat didn't look all that exciting but not going to take too much away from just that video. I will say that video didn't really excite me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 08:18:09 AM
I thought the animations were fine, but agree that some of the combat looked scripted. It is pre alpha, so to me it looks fantastic overall.I'm pretty impressed by all the things that are already done and fairly polished looking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 08, 2012, 09:19:25 AM
The animations didn't look that bad to me, nor did the graphics. The biggest problem I saw is that it looks just like every other Fantasy MMO currently on the market. There wasn't anything in that video to distinguish it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 08, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
Video is disappointing in all possible ways, mostly because not one single thing stands out from what is already available. That said, it's pre-alpha so I won't bash it based on guts feeling. Game could still be awesome regardless of what it looks like. But to be excited about that video, or the words they are using to sell it, definitely requires lots of blind faith in the franchise and a good amount of delusion-inspired enamorment.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 09:40:54 AM
That combat is, not what it should have.

Its a less complicated AOC like system it seems. Only, no mobs try to dodge, move, or flank you, nor do they react to your hits at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
I want to see more about the developed combat and the pvp. The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else, and if that's their focus they are doomed.

The PvP has a shot if it's based on a combat system that's more on the typical Elder Scrolls system, and not just target-swing-block.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 08, 2012, 10:43:17 AM
All in all the introduction video reminded me of AoC. The $1k question is whether  it's the "Tortage-experience" or what came after it...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 11:55:14 AM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2012, 12:02:14 PM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.

So instead of dungeons and raiding it could be...<insert what here>?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2012, 12:11:56 PM
It is going to be dungeons and raiding, but it sounds like both WOW models and GW2 models.  I thought I heard of something that is going to be some instance you can join with a shit ton of people to kill bad guys.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 08, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
I'm more interested in whether they can make a good pvp metagame (and actually have hundred players on screen without significant problems). While GW2 fills my pvp-craving at the moment, it does suffer from "culling" (and some other less important problems) and if ESO launches next year (or relatively soon anyway) it might be the next mmo for me (if it delivers on large-scale pvp).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 12:54:40 PM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.

So instead of dungeons and raiding it could be...<insert what here>?

More like its namesakes? Its the combat I have issue with, is a click click combat, but its nothing like the reactions you get from the other titles. They just stand there, cycling animations. If mobs flanked, blocked, reacted to hits, ETC...

What this seems to be is standard MMO mobs and behavior with a "actiony" combat. Net result: I stand here and click at him,. May as well put the TAB target back in. DDO does what was shown in that video better, but that's still not like this series should be. Hell, Mortal online does this better.

It feels like they are scared to go beyond standard MMO combat, but will put a sheen over it so you think its marginally different. Not sure if its because they think MMO players EXPECT dumb, stand around AI or what....

Don't say skyrim combat can't be done. Because it can.

Hell: http://www.chivalrythegame.com/

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare Launch Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JcNuz63JbKc&list=PLBE562F8499B358C0)


While not as complicated as Mount and Blade, still really visceral combat that is more in line with the The Elder Scrolls line. That alone will make killing a mob way more fun than ever increasing numbers and more and more rats that are stupid to fight. You do not need fifty billion kill quests when you have a good combat system that makes each fight interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 05:52:55 PM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore.  Maybe you outgrew them.  Maybe you need a break.  I skipped the whole WOW seen (thank you DAOC addiction) and have been playing DDO and other, newer games very lightly over the last few years, and at this point I'm ready to sink myself into a nice new AAA MMO.

You guys who are saying this video looks 'terrible' are in a tiny minority from what I've seen on other sites.  Bloodworth - your predictions about mobs just standing there and not doing anything like flanking or using abilities is complete opposite to all the play test reviews that are out there.  I agree the video made it seem like this, but I'm hoping it was just a limitation of the POV, and the fact that they only showed a few seconds worth of each fight.  You should read a few, or at least listen to a few (there are podcasts and youtube vids) if you can't be bothered to read them.

I thought it looked awesome.  I'm excited for many things:

1. Character advancement and diversification via many pathways: a. leveling where assign points to magicka, stamina or health b. level skills gained through weapon choice, class, armor choice, stat assignment c. perks (lycanthropy and vampirism confirmed!), and, d.  rvr renown.

2. Beautiful graphics and smooth animations - did you see them jumping into the lake?  The world graphics look just as good or better than ES titles.  Pre-alpha, without all the options on, I'm sure.  LOL - if you say this game looks like crap, you either need to download a higher res version of the video, or you just cannot be pleased.  For a game that allows hundreds of characters on screen, they looked pretty damn good.

3. RVR done right - 3 factions, destructible environments, capturable points of interest like keeps, towers, trade stations, villages.

4. RVR zone that IS an adventure zone complete with pve quests, dungeons, and towns.  I can't fucking wait to hunt some damn elves (of course I'm playing an orc!) down while they try to farm x mob for x quest.

5. No overt quest hubs!  The UI with the POI compass look awesome.

6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

7. Looser trinity, but still there - if you are a fighter and you spend some time learning to use that heal staff, you can fill in for a healer in a pinch for adventuring or pvp.  No, you can never be as good as a real healer, but it will be damn nice to not have annoying ass LFM up for 2 hours while you try to build the perfect group.

8. Clean engine with a clean server code from the ground up built for this game.  Goodbye SWTOR and DDO with your janky ass kludged on code.

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.

Cheer up, Bloodworth - you seem so very disgruntled.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 08, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
Game is pretty. Concerned about the animations, and I still think the faction split is dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on November 08, 2012, 06:20:41 PM

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.


 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 08, 2012, 08:15:41 PM
"Once you hit level 50, that's when the game really opens up."

 :facepalm:

It looks nifty.  I wish I could just set it to be balanced solo and play it all alone. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 08:25:48 PM
"Once you hit level 50, that's when the game really opens up."

 :facepalm:

It looks nifty.  I wish I could just set it to be balanced solo and play it all alone. 

At least their idea of end game is different from SWTOR - roll alts til you go crazy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 09, 2012, 12:28:44 AM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore. 

 :oh_i_see:

Seriously. Stop. You HAVE to know better than post that crap.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2012, 06:43:53 AM
He's been pimping the game since the beginning. I doubt he would post anything else.

The game is going to hinge on the combat. They can literally take all the graphic videos, the feature videos, and stuff them all up their asses over at Zenimax. Show me combat. Show much buckets of combat. Show me the exact HUD and GUI options I'll have, including my spellcasting, targetting, AI, and dealing with lag.

Literally nothing else will sell this game unless the combat is different and featured. If it's not, I'll ignore it until well after release, and I'll watch the inevitable youtube videos. And you don't want that Zenimax. You don't want that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 09, 2012, 07:00:06 AM
You can all mark this post for posterity.

Post marked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 09, 2012, 07:13:55 AM
Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.
One of my relatives is pretty much gay for The Elder Scrolls series; we're talking hundreds of hours into all of them Arena/Daggerfall included. Unabashed, complete fanboy.

He's extremely pessimistic about this game. Granted most of his complaints are lore related, but he said he'll be pissed if this feels like anything but a TES game and it's not looking great so far.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 09, 2012, 07:16:42 AM
It's a lot better looking than that teaser or whatever it was called they released earlier.  It's pretty enough I'll have to buy it just to explore and look around but I'm sure the systems will be terrible and I'll unsubscribe as soon as I'm max level.  Also, bugs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 09, 2012, 07:29:15 AM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore. 

 :oh_i_see:

Seriously. Stop. You HAVE to know better than post that crap.

Well, he is right in my case. I Can no longer stand MMO combat, nor, as an effect, MMO questing. I have been burned out for quite a while, and my post, and disappointment show this.

A True Elder Scrolls Online would be my saviour. This is not it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 07:52:34 AM
I thought it looked awesome.  I'm excited for many things:

1. Character advancement and diversification via many pathways: a. leveling where assign points to magicka, stamina or health b. level skills gained through weapon choice, class, armor choice, stat assignment c. perks (lycanthropy and vampirism confirmed!), and, d.  rvr renown.

2. Beautiful graphics and smooth animations - did you see them jumping into the lake?  The world graphics look just as good or better than ES titles.  Pre-alpha, without all the options on, I'm sure.  LOL - if you say this game looks like crap, you either need to download a higher res version of the video, or you just cannot be pleased.  For a game that allows hundreds of characters on screen, they looked pretty damn good.

3. RVR done right - 3 factions, destructible environments, capturable points of interest like keeps, towers, trade stations, villages.

4. RVR zone that IS an adventure zone complete with pve quests, dungeons, and towns.  I can't fucking wait to hunt some damn elves (of course I'm playing an orc!) down while they try to farm x mob for x quest.

5. No overt quest hubs!  The UI with the POI compass look awesome.

6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

7. Looser trinity, but still there - if you are a fighter and you spend some time learning to use that heal staff, you can fill in for a healer in a pinch for adventuring or pvp.  No, you can never be as good as a real healer, but it will be damn nice to not have annoying ass LFM up for 2 hours while you try to build the perfect group.

8. Clean engine with a clean server code from the ground up built for this game.  Goodbye SWTOR and DDO with your janky ass kludged on code.

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.

Cheer up, Bloodworth - you seem so very disgruntled.


Holy shit dude.

You are just giving them a HUGE HUGE HUGE benefit of the doubt.  Clean engine? PVP done right? 100s of toons on the screen at once?  I will believe all of that when the game is released, not a moment before.  Fuck dude, you really need to be objective here.

Also, based on that video, the combat animations and demo were horrific because it's gonna be 2013 when this is released, not 2008.  All I saw were dude standing still swinging at each other every 2 seconds.

Hopefully their leveling thing is cool, but it's not groundbreaking or anything.  I really can't say if it's good or bad until I see how they balance shit and set up character development with details.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 07:54:41 AM
He's been pimping the game since the beginning. I doubt he would post anything else.

The game is going to hinge on the combat. They can literally take all the graphic videos, the feature videos, and stuff them all up their asses over at Zenimax. Show me combat. Show much buckets of combat. Show me the exact HUD and GUI options I'll have, including my spellcasting, targetting, AI, and dealing with lag.

Literally nothing else will sell this game unless the combat is different and featured. If it's not, I'll ignore it until well after release, and I'll watch the inevitable youtube videos. And you don't want that Zenimax. You don't want that.

This all day long.  I don't need scripted shitty videos showing "oh look we recreated braveheart in our game!".  Show me the game as it's being played.  I really hate it when studios turn off the UI or whatever and show 6 people running through a forest or standing around a boss mob swinging randomly for 4 seconds.  Gah.  It's fine for commercials not an introduction video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 09, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
It's like the preceding 15 years of hype over substance MMO marketing didn't exist. That's like the platonic ideal of a fanboy post. Like, shit, maybe it is great, but sucking off the studio over a video (even a better video) like that is annoying.

Also, I'm over standard MMO combat. I fired up the Rift free account activation preview thingy. I lasted 10 minutes, and I like Rift. I kept trying to cast on the move like in GW2 or dodge. I was immediately given thirty abilities, which I'd forgotten what they do. I headed up to the shipwrecked queen to get things going via quest. Looked pretty cool. She said thanks... and then offered me a daily. I turned it off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 09, 2012, 09:10:02 AM
This is petty, but I really dislike that Todd Howard gave an interview around Skyrim's launch that roughly said TES is a single-player world, only to announce six months later that there's been an MMO in dev for a long time.  I realize he couldn't divulge information on the title yet, but it just smacks me as shitty to lie directly to the interviewer and audience.  He could have said something akin to "We've considered it, but nothing definite".  But instead he outright lied about it. 

This might turn out to be a great game, I don't know.  But the series feels tainted now that they want to add the rest of the gaming "community" into my single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2012, 09:44:49 AM
6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

That wasn't even remotely what WAR's problems stemmed from, but we have a whole forum where that discussion has taken place.

You're gushing over this video is... premature.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 10:05:04 AM
6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

That wasn't even remotely what WAR's problems stemmed from, but we have a whole forum where that discussion has taken place.

You're gushing over this video is... premature.

I think that is the nicest thing you've ever said.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2012, 10:09:35 AM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 10:23:02 AM
After his last post you think it's really hidden?  It's probably in his front lawn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on November 09, 2012, 11:07:06 AM
Whatever, it's refreshing to occasionally see someone popping boners over an alpha trailer of an MMO. I'm sure we all remember when we used to be that optimistic and borderline naive prior to MMO releases. I even found myself tapping into the giddy feelings in the first minute or so of the trailer. Then, slowly, I realized many aspects just didn't seem right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 09, 2012, 12:50:05 PM
People really need to incorporate a Build From Nothing attitude towards MMO's — trust absofuckinglutely nothing and never 'sign in' on an MMO until you have at least seen unedited gameplay video from a release functional build. PvP especially, if that and RvR are an intended draw.

If this game turns out to be an actually good MMO i'll be so surprised i'll eat a hat for you guys. Not as big a hat as I literally signed an agreement to eat if MNS's The Last Airbender turned out to not be terrible, but i'll still eat something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 09, 2012, 01:17:45 PM
You guys who are saying this video looks 'terrible' are in a tiny minority from what I've seen on other sites.  Bloodworth - your predictions about mobs just standing there and not doing anything like flanking or using abilities is complete opposite to all the play test reviews that are out there.  I agree the video made it seem like this, but I'm hoping it was just a limitation of the POV, and the fact that they only showed a few seconds worth of each fight.  You should read a few, or at least listen to a few (there are podcasts and youtube vids) if you can't be bothered to read them.

Or you could trust the video you just watched rather than the words of some random starfucking neckbeard on the internet.  When your promotional materials make the safety dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmArX8GvHLo) look like highly mobile combat you have a problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 09, 2012, 02:08:03 PM
Make an MMO with daggerfall's randomness (or I might be just nostalgic and remember it totally wrong) where the parts of the world are re-seeded(?) every now and then and I'd be there in a flash. Otherwise I have to say pve in MMOs holds little interest to me any more as single-player games usually offer something better in that arena...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 09, 2012, 05:30:20 PM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.

I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 09, 2012, 05:39:49 PM
We eat our young here :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on November 09, 2012, 05:57:46 PM
If you like a game don't come here to talk about it.  If you want to be pessimistic or trash it, then you are in the right place.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2012, 06:24:35 PM
Yeah the Secret World and Torchlight and never got any love here recently  :oh_i_see:

We're not beyond people liking a game. We get ancy when we see people SHILLING for a game when we have next to no actual information beyond developer promises and scripted videos.

Look, I'm all for somebody liking a game. I irrationally love Total War games. For some reason I still play WoW even though dailyfest bugs me. But this game has a very serious question mark I can't reconcile in my head to get on board. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my main issue: From what we know the game has been in development for 5 years, and it's slated to release next year, but up until recently they were talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMBAT SYSTEM.

Now, I'm not saying a switch away from what I was originally hearing as a standard tab-target bullshit combat system isn't a positive move. What concerns me is that they A - didn't know that TES players would balk at that bullshit, and B - they are changing it this late in the game. I mean, changing combat in an RPG game isn't a small task. You've overhauling the way the game operates at a baseline level. If this is supposed to release in a year, how much time have they now scrapped because their combat previously was ass?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on November 09, 2012, 06:57:12 PM
One of the reasons why I like this forum is because the extreme ends of the scale (from rabid fanboy to obsessive hater) are less likely to be tolerated than at other places. I trust the collective response from people on f13 over "actual" reviews any day of the week. Except maybe Tuesdays.

Edit: Crap. This makes me an f13 fanboy, doesn't it...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 09, 2012, 06:59:06 PM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.

I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.
You have no idea how badly I want to like a TES MMO. It's a unique property that if done right would make an awesome MMO. But we're up to some ungodly number of shitty, shitty big-IP AAA mmos at this point and there have been PLENTY of us who have drank the koolaid on at least one game. You're talking to an asshole who recently resubbed to WoW.

Here's the process we've seen with this shit every time:

1. Rumors surface of a big IP AAA MMO done by some studio that has a good enough track record that people are curious.
2. As info trickles in fanboys get hardons, everyone speculates, IS THE HOLY TRINITY REALLY GONE THIS TIME? MAN I HOPE THE PVP IS LIKE DAOC!!
3. Breathless sorta-gameplay video of early beta/alpha product with devs talking over it about how they're really gonna do it right this time and how excited they are.
4. Fan news site opens.
5. Beta; game at best looks promising if they fix XYZ.
6. Game comes out, XYZ aren't fixed.
7. XYZ are never fixed, or fixed so slowly people get frustrated. Some big technical issues; servers, client, website, whatever.
8. Game does not immediately accrue WoW's numbers, publisher shitcans 3/4ths of the staff. Every big name creative head leaves.
9. Game stagnates, loses subs, everyone but dedicated fans move on.
10. F2P/Maintenance Mode.

And thus the cycle begins again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 09, 2012, 07:13:49 PM
If you like a game don't come here to talk about it.  If you want to be pessimistic or trash it, then you are in the right place.   :oh_i_see:

There's plenty of games getting positive feedback around here, and I personally have no problem with people championing products which everybody else hates (though that doesn't mean I won't argue with them).

Where it gets stupid is when you say something like "if this trailer didn't get you excited, then there's something wrong with you."  That's when we leave the realm of discussion and move firmly into ad hominem fanboyism.  There are valid reasons for not liking anything, if you can't see that, you're not ready to have a discussion about it.  I don't mind the guy coming in and posting info about the game, I mind him acting all shocked that people are disagreeing with him.  I read boards like these for discussions, for disagreements, not to have the privilege of validating someone's opinion.

I don't hate TES:O.  I don't think it looks awesome, either.  It could go either way.  It's encouraging that they are responding to feedback, though like others have posted, I'd need some more solid feedback on the core systems before I start giving a shit about things like quest hubs and server details.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 09, 2012, 08:06:21 PM

Being too optimistic or pessimistic over a game still under NDA is pretty pointless, but it's fun watching for signs of which way it's going.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 09, 2012, 10:16:00 PM

Being too optimistic or pessimistic over a game still under NDA is pretty pointless, but it's fun watching for signs of which way it's going.


Nah, you can get a lot of thin-slicing material out of promo materials. Eventually you just sort of get a feel for when a game's production is radiating failvibes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 09, 2012, 11:10:26 PM
I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.
If you want to fanboy over a game that's released (or in an open beta that you can actually play), go ahead. You'll find people who hate it, but you'll probably find that some of us like it. However, you're acting exactly like Curt was over Reckoning: posting almost exclusively in one thread, pimping a game that's very far away based on little more than scripted video, interviews, and a love for a guy who made your favorite game way back whenever ago. It almost seems like you're working for Zenimax trying to artificially generate buzz, and on MMORPG.com or the VNboards that shit might fly.

However, here at f13 as Fabricated illustrated we've seen it all; the MMO scene has been promising gold and delivering shit for so long that most of us don't get excited over pointless fluff videos or promises of fetuspults. Give us some real, in game footage and we'll get excited. Give us a nice, long beta with no NDA and access to more than the first 20 levels and we'll give a shit. If TESO still looks good, we'll get a subforum going, <Bat Country> created and start posting character names and "What went wrong" threads. :why_so_serious: But until then, there's no point getting our collective hopes up for Disappointing MMO Launch N.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 10, 2012, 02:05:39 AM
However, you're acting exactly like Curt was over Reckoning: posting almost exclusively in one thread, pimping a game that's very far away based on little more than scripted video, interviews, and a love for a guy who made your favorite game way back whenever ago. It almost seems like you're working for Zenimax trying to artificially generate buzz, and on MMORPG.com or the VNboards that shit might fly.

Hey, atleast Zenimax has shown us alot more than Curt's 38 Studios ever did about their upcoming MMO  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 10, 2012, 04:13:23 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

A: Say, "I told you so."

-or-

B: Say, "You guys were so right, can't believe I am such a sap."

Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.


I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.

 :oh_i_see:

Take this as an advice from a fellow "optimist" (which I am not, but eh..)

I'm the one around here usually liking games "too much" and being made fun of because of that. f13 is not gonna change and neither am I. We jab at each other all the time and I try (sometimes failing) not to turn my excitement into blatant advertising cause that's when it gets ridiculous. Not a big deal unless you stretch it too far and shill for a game that we haven't seen shit of 1 year before it's released. Your blind endorsement is juvenile, no matter how old you are, and since I am probably the only other one here who occasionally suffers of such a thing I understand you, I know where it's coming from, but I still suggest you to try and tone it down because eventually if you look and sound ridiculous maybe it's time to get perspective, instead of telling everyone else that they clearly don't understand.

So stop being a baby. If you want to desperately and loudly hope for some sort of double-Christmas keep doing so, but take the deserved flak and stop acting like everyone is mean to the new kid. It's nothing like that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 10, 2012, 05:24:47 AM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2012, 06:26:22 AM
I'll put it this way. I'm interested in where they are headed. The idea of combat that isn't a tab-target ripoff is a good idea.

But I want to see it. And until I see it, lists of features do nothing for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 07:37:11 AM
I'm the one around here usually liking games "too much" and being made fun of because of that. f13 is not gonna change and neither am I.
Don't be so hard on yourself, Falc.  You may unjustifiably love a game, but you know it's just your opinion, not the end-all-be-all for everyone else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: climbjtree on November 10, 2012, 09:38:53 AM
Pardon my off topic intrusion, but ol' blackwulf is the only person I've seen insert two spaces after a period since I learned to type in middle school.

...

Carry on.

edit: Uh, and of course Lantyssa. Immediately after I posted this post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 10, 2012, 10:51:46 AM
So blackwulf is Lantyssa's gimmick account?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 10, 2012, 10:54:38 AM
I'll put it this way. I'm interested in where they are headed. The idea of combat that isn't a tab-target ripoff is a good idea.

What worries me is that when I heard it described, it sounded like a kludged together mask over a tab target system, rather than any kind of fundamental change in the mechanics.   There was still tab tageting, it wasn't some free-aiming collision check thing like AoC or [insert action game], it was just that you were in mouselook by default and automatically targeting whatever was under your cursor when you clicked the ability.   And you still had the ability to "lock" in targets.   And I'd be really surprised if there wasn't also a button to cycle targets, though I didn't see that explicitly stated.   Which makes the whole thing seem to me like putting cat ears on a dog when you've just heard that nobody wants to buy a dog.

I suppose it would look more open, and might even feel more open, but in any marginally challenging context, the ability to lock targets is going to obviate the entire aiming mechanic.   It's one of those systems whose sole purpose is to mask another system, so 95% of it's effectiveness is going to be how it deals with the limitations of that underlying system.   How does it handle attacks against no target, or when the target wanders in front of the fireball halfway through it's travel path, or against a fast moving target at range, how does it deal with cover, that kind of thing is going to determine how well this works, for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 11:27:24 AM
And Kail, apparently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 10, 2012, 11:32:45 AM
Pfft, no.   Count again, you posers, I'm TRIPLE SPACING this shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 10, 2012, 01:01:22 PM
Double spacers unite!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 10, 2012, 01:06:08 PM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.

My advice would just be participate in the community instead of just the one thread, and everyone will put up with this stuff more. Probably.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 02:27:59 PM
Not if it's not backed up by anything.  See our reaction to Bloodworth after he latches on to a game. ;D


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on November 10, 2012, 02:56:16 PM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.

My advice would just be participate in the community instead of just the one thread, and everyone will put up with this stuff more. Probably.

Don't listen to Ingmar, it's all a trap!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 10, 2012, 09:38:14 PM
Joining the f13 Blood Bowl league may also help. Or not.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 10, 2012, 10:12:35 PM
Elder Scrolls Online, as marketed so far, should not in the least be used as any measure of f13 being a bunch of pessimistic grouches — the game legitimately is a perfect example of something that rightfully provokes a bad gut feeling and poor confidence in industry types and mmo veterans alike


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 11, 2012, 02:22:52 AM
Joining the f13 Blood Bowl league may also help. Or not.  :why_so_serious:

A few games of blood bowl with some bad luck and you'll start to feel it  :drill:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 11, 2012, 04:51:25 AM
Elder Scrolls Online, as marketed so far, should not in the least be used as any measure of f13 being a bunch of pessimistic grouches — the game legitimately is a perfect example of something that rightfully provokes a bad gut feeling and poor confidence in industry types and mmo veterans alike

If this was 2007-ish and TESO was appearing at it is, then we'd probably not be thinking this way either. But I think that TESO has missed the MMO boat by about 5 years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on November 11, 2012, 05:45:04 AM
It's never too late to catch the MMO Failboat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on November 11, 2012, 11:21:33 PM
Not if it's not backed up by anything.  See our reaction to Bloodworth after he latches on to a game. ;D

The difference is, we love Bloodworth.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 12, 2012, 12:27:18 AM
...From what we know the game has been in development for 5 years, and it's slated to release next year, but up until recently they were talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMBAT SYSTEM.

Now, I'm not saying a switch away from what I was originally hearing as a standard tab-target bullshit combat system isn't a positive move. What concerns me is that they A - didn't know that TES players would balk at that bullshit, and B - they are changing it this late in the game. I mean, changing combat in an RPG game isn't a small task. You've overhauling the way the game operates at a baseline level. If this is supposed to release in a year, how much time have they now scrapped because their combat previously was ass?

You might be overestimating the complexity here a tad.  It wouldn't take much to turn something like Cone of Cold in WoW into a Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim style melee attack (on keyboard/mouse input run a dummy CoC type attack, compare distance and heading of everything in the cone's arc to get a single most likely target, do a basic attack on that target).  In WoW terms player-controlled blocking is simply periodically checking for an input state, then modifying block chance (someone wrote a mod that does exactly this for Morrowind via Morrowind Script Extender).

Not to say that the argument doesn't have merit, or that the various and sundry other reasons to be suspicious of this game don't exist, but generating art assets is supposed to be the major bottleneck anyways.

It's never too late to catch the MMO Failboat.

The failboat never sets sail, only sinks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 12, 2012, 01:08:20 AM
I'd be more excited about this if they were doing an all-PvE MMO.  The fact that they're putting any sort of PvP into it means all kinds of stupid balancing shit is going to take place.  Essentially, the whole character gen will have to be re-envisioned. 

So we have proven single-player studio doing their first MMO and trying to be AAA with a metric fuckton of money.  This has all the hallmarks of a major disaster.  Not to mention that they simply won't be able to create a world big enough in their MMO to make Tamriel look even mildly plausible.

I want to get my hopes up and love this idea, but just no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 05:40:48 AM
So we have proven single-player studio doing their first MMO and trying to be AAA with a metric fuckton of money.  This has all the hallmarks of a major disaster.  Not to mention that they simply won't be able to create a world big enough in their MMO to make Tamriel look even mildly plausible.

Bethesda isn't making it.  Zenimax (the parent company of Bethesda) built a new studio for this game and hired industry vets.  Matt Firor is heading it up, along with other pre-WAR Mythic employees, some vets from UO, and dozens of other experienced MMO people.  Really, according to interviews, the only thing Bethesda has to do with this game is that they have had input on the use of lore.
I think this is an interesting point, because I think it's kind of the opposite of what Bioware did with SWTOR - they created the game in house, and consulted with MMO vets.  Or am I wrong?

With regard to your second point - I would be tempted to agree, but, unless they are lying, each province is as big as one of the single player TES games.

And, yes, guys - I realize it is possible they are lying about this stuff, and I want to see some more vids too!

Also, I can't break that old two spaces after a period habit that my typing instructor drilled into me.  It just happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 05:52:38 AM
Past MMO dev isn't a boon at this point, it's a handicap. I'm a fan of the genre and some of the least-liked games and even *I* can admit that.

The games that were popular in their heyday were popular because there were no alternatives.  You've seen better games from people with no experience and no expectations of what the game should and shouldn't do at this point.   From a game system standpoint, give me new blood.

The only guys who should be getting props WRT past experience are the tech guys; and only if their systems weren't going to shit on launch or shortly thereafter.


Adding PVP in to the mix makes this a non-starter. RPGs aren't the vehicle for successful PVP that's fun for all parties. Never have been and it's not likely they ever will be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 06:16:41 AM
That's an interesting way of looking at things.  I agree that I wouldn't trust anything from some industry vets. *cough* Mark Jacobs.  If you think about it, some of the biggest letdowns in the last decade have been made by guys who were responsible for our favorite games.  Vangaurd, Tabula Rasa, pretty much anything by SOE, WAR.  I could go on.

That said, does that mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Keep in mind that this game has been in development a long time.  Six or so years.  Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?  Most of the huge failures in recent memory had nothing to do with the guys working on ESO.

I think if you consider other industries, you'd agree that usually experience is a good thing.  Now, I'll be clear, there is no excuse for repeating mistakes made by other game studios.  If they haven't had their ears to the ground in recent years and made sure they aren't doing something stupid, I'll be right there with the rest of the peasants holding pitchforks...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2012, 06:40:48 AM
The baby's dead, Burke.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 12, 2012, 07:00:43 AM
Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?

If the game's development started in 2006 and finished in 2008 or 2009? Not at all.

Six years is an eternity  in game development, even for MMOs which tend to take longer than the average game to make. After six years I imagine the project leads have either been so myopic that the game will launch out of date with a bunch of systems people thought antiquated three to five years ago, or it'll have gotten a late-stage "let's be all things to everybody" pass to try and cast a wider net over the potential audience, which just ends up with a bunch of three-quarters-baked systems that'll never quite get finished.

I imagine the game can still do well, somehow, but there is just so much stacked against it: the excruciatingly long dev time, the backwards-looking project leads hoping to recapture past glories, the now-utterly hostile market (I will be stunned if the game doesn't launch with a $15/mo subscription), the wholly inappropriate license for the setting... That's not even going into the potential land mines of individual game systems, especially the open-world PvP area with game-wide consequences relating to its control, which will be an albatross around this game's neck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 12, 2012, 07:36:18 AM
I think this is an interesting point, because I think it's kind of the opposite of what Bioware did with SWTOR - they created the game in house, and consulted with MMO vets.  Or am I wrong?
It's exactly what they did with SWToR.

Bioware Edmonton just did the writing and consulting initially.  They eventually brought in people, but it was mostly run by MMO industry vets at a new studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 07:52:46 AM
I imagine the game can still do well, somehow, but there is just so much stacked against it: the excruciatingly long dev time, the backwards-looking project leads hoping to recapture past glories, the now-utterly hostile market (I will be stunned if the game doesn't launch with a $15/mo subscription), the wholly inappropriate license for the setting... That's not even going into the potential land mines of individual game systems, especially the open-world PvP area with game-wide consequences relating to its control, which will be an albatross around this game's neck.

Yeah, when you lay it out like that, it does sound grim!  Here's hoping they have a lot more to show us...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 08:02:57 AM
That said, does that mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Keep in mind that this game has been in development a long time.  Six or so years.  Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?  Most of the huge failures in recent memory had nothing to do with the guys working on ESO.

I think if you consider other industries, you'd agree that usually experience is a good thing.  Now, I'll be clear, there is no excuse for repeating mistakes made by other game studios.  If they haven't had their ears to the ground in recent years and made sure they aren't doing something stupid, I'll be right there with the rest of the peasants holding pitchforks...

I was and did write-off a number of "vets" in 2006.  Warhammer only got me because of the focused testing hiding the underlayer of crap.  The vets from UO, COH, EQ, AC, FFXI and SWG? I totally wrote them off after I saw the number of, "Oh that's an error" and "outlier, ignore it" or "just a bunch of Blizzard fanboys" comments thrown at WoW by the lot of them.   They weren't willing to change or learn from a game that ate their old paradigm for lunch.  They were dinosaurs then and moreso now.

Experience is a good thing only so long as you don't let it hinder growth.  Games are creative as well as technical with an iterative evolutionary process.  You learn from the past and cherry pick the parts you like.  Experience should tell you what didn't work and what you need to fix in the next iteration. That doesn't happen when you take the attitude of, "I was the hot shit before, clearly people want more of the same hot shit!"   Even Blizzard fell victim to this mentality and it has cost them nearly their entire audience because of it and their rep has taken hits on the SP and MMO front I don't think they'll recover from.

The other problem is No MMO dev has learned you can't be everything to everyone, and they've all suffered for it.  Sometimes you just have to say, "Sorry, we're not focused on your playstyle."  Much like I don't go to Steak 'n Shake for pancakes (which they're advertising the hell out of so I mention it.)  I don't go to an excellent PVE MMO for PVP.   Trying only makes things awful for everyone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 08:06:32 AM
If the words "tab-target" "lock-on target" or "click target" make an appearance, this game will be DOA. Not once has anyone who ever played a TES game had to "target" anything. They'll lose their audience then and there.

That being said, my main hope is that they revamp the system enough to do something that's not been done before. That something would be to take the combat style of Chivalry or Mount and Blade, and apply it to the MMO format.

IF they could do that, I'd drop WoW in a hot second.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 12, 2012, 08:26:45 AM
Am I the only one who compares old MMO-Developer vets to George Lucas?  Scott Hartsman is the only exception to the rule.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 08:40:05 AM
I just don't think any MMO project that is aiming at anything like "AAA" is going to turn out well at this point.  Make something narrow and focused that I am interested in and I will try it, but these huge fantasy MMO releases just don't interest me anymore.  I got dragged in to release after release for years, and I'm mostly burnt out on the idea regardless of what feature list they throw at me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 12, 2012, 08:45:20 AM
If the words "tab-target" "lock-on target" or "click target" make an appearance, this game will be DOA. Not once has anyone who ever played a TES game had to "target" anything. They'll lose their audience then and there.

I realize I'm picking the pieces apart of this game as we often do here, and I feel overly negative about it.  I'll likely end up buying it at some point because, well, it's TES.  But I'm extremely suspect that I'll actually like it. 

How are they handling zone levels?  Part of the feeling of the TES games is the ability to go where you want, no con mobs, and possibly just get beat down.  I can't see that translating to an MMO without too much player whine.  However, if the game is simply Cyrodill is the lvl 1-10 newb zone, then Hammerfall is lvl 20-30, then that's some crap. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 12, 2012, 09:09:39 AM
I haven't played an Elder Scrolls game without modding the magic system to give me more mana, and I've played almost all of them.  I also mod the skill levelling system, mostly because they never quite got right (imo) the way enemies level up with you, and I hate being underpowered / unprepared because I've jumped, ran, or swam too much, or because I've tried to make some money via one of the crafts.

Obviously, in an MMO, we won't be able to mod anything, which just kills the game for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 09:31:58 AM
If you don't care why you're killing 10000 foozles, I can understand the burnout.  It's never been there for me because I did care. It's always been about the "world" to me, even though I play for the game aspects. (I have no interest in being a Space Tailor, thanks.)  

I didn't jump in to several of the games because I couldn't get in to the world and the lore, even if the mechanics were fun.  Guildwars 1 bored me and I wasn't interested, so I can't even attempt GW2 even with all the glowing praise.   The same for Secret World.  I'm not in to horror and Lovecraft so I was immediately disinterested.  Pity, as they both sounded fun.

So fantasy or not, sci-fi or not, the next game will be one that draws me in on that then keeps me via the combination of mechanics and lore.  (No, TES won't be it.  I've tried them since my college buddy went apeshit for the first elder scrolls in '94 and haven't enjoyed a single one.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 10:09:43 AM
If you don't care why you're killing 10000 foozles, I can understand the burnout.  It's never been there for me because I did care. It's always been about the "world" to me, even though I play for the game aspects. (I have no interest in being a Space Tailor, thanks.)  

I didn't jump in to several of the games because I couldn't get in to the world and the lore, even if the mechanics were fun.  Guildwars 1 bored me and I wasn't interested, so I can't even attempt GW2 even with all the glowing praise.   The same for Secret World.  I'm not in to horror and Lovecraft so I was immediately disinterested.  Pity, as they both sounded fun.

So fantasy or not, sci-fi or not, the next game will be one that draws me in on that then keeps me via the combination of mechanics and lore.  (No, TES won't be it.  I've tried them since my college buddy went apeshit for the first elder scrolls in '94 and haven't enjoyed a single one.)

The real problem is that I just can't look past the fact that the story is all smoke and mirrors in the traditional DIKU model.  You aren't actually changing the game world at all.  WoW phasing is one attempt at fixing this, but in the end it just makes it so I am reminded even more or the game mechanics, not less.  I think I was most "in" to the EVE story, because the story was literally the history of what the players had done, and the reason I was doing something had to do with those interplayer relationships and actions.  You can't replicate that in an DIKU to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on November 12, 2012, 10:17:59 AM
I'm burnt out on the idea that I need the same game to play for months at a time.  If I get a few weeks out of a single player game in general I feel I got my money's worth, and I treat MMO's the same way now.  I've stopped caring about long term viability, end-game and balancing, all I want is something fun to play for a while.  Once the novelty wears off and I can see the repetition and time sinks to pad out the fun I move on.  I have no loyalty, and aren't swayed at all anymore by the achievement carrots to max out and finish this or that or get the best loot.

Now that I have that perspective I look at a game like this and think, I'll probably get the box value out of it, and stop caring how they will fuck it up for the longer term.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2012, 10:23:42 AM
was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

We are having a discussion - it's just that not one person here agrees with you about how abso-fucking-lutely great this video is and how it's going to revolutionize the MMO. You don't sound like someone having a discussion, you sound like someone proselytizing for a game that hasn't given one indication it will be any different than anything we've seen before and may actually be a step back considering it's been in development for five years.

You don't have to agree with us that this will suck, but you do have to at least provide SOMETHING of substance that leads you to believe it. 100 people look at that video and you are the only 1 who doesn't think it's at the very best boring, that problem ain't with the 99 or the house they choose to have a discussion in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 10:29:25 AM
was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

We are having a discussion - it's just that not one person here agrees with you about how abso-fucking-lutely great this video is and how it's going to revolutionize the MMO. You don't sound like someone having a discussion, you sound like someone proselytizing for a game that hasn't given one indication it will be any different than anything we've seen before and may actually be a step back considering it's been in development for five years.

You don't have to agree with us that this will suck, but you do have to at least provide SOMETHING of substance that leads you to believe it. 100 people look at that video and you are the only 1 who doesn't think it's at the very best boring, that problem ain't with the 99 or the house they choose to have a discussion in.

Let's just come out and say it.  Given that F13 is pretty community based, and that this guy hasn't been involved in it much aside from this thread, we all have the nagging feeling he is just trying to promote the game.  It probably isn't true, but its fairly well established around here that you can get away with a bit of crazy as long as you make an effort to be part of the community (I should know).  When new people come in and take part in a variety of discussions, there is more reason to think they are genuine. 

The fact that we are overly cynical here is kind of...well advertised.. but we always have a few "This is going to be great!" people for any given game. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2012, 10:37:18 AM
Sure, the fact I never see blackwulf posting ANYWHERE but this thread, and all he posts is "I THINK ESO WILL BE TEH GREATEST EVAR!!!!" he sounds like a fucking mole. I don't think he is a mole, but reading posts that only knobslob a game for all the reasons anyone else experienced with MMOG's would say are the reasons you shouldn't trust it would be good gets really irritating.

Experienced MMO devs? NOT A PLUS. MMO devs are worse than government appointees for failing upwards before crashing and burning with someone else's money. MMO success is like the flaming crotchrot. Getting it is fun, but it'll eventually lead to the screaming wiggle death.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 11:37:57 AM
Experience in a leadership role only matters if the experience was good. If you failed in a leadership role, that doesn't lead me to believe you can succeed in the next leadership role. People always try to spin failure as a learning experience, but that only goes so far. Success is also a learning experience. Guess which guy I want on my team?

If I want to boil it down even further, Matt Firor scares the hell out of me for this exact reason. He was involved in the design of DOAC vanilla, and in DAOC Shrouded Isles. The first opportunity he got as executive producer was Trials of Atlantis. That's absolutely the worst expansion I've played in a game. It tied Cataclysm as reasons I've quit an MMO.

Now he's the director of this game. I'm not shocked he left Mythic when it was purchased by EA, but he'd already done enough damage on DAOC that is was unsalvagable as a title.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 12, 2012, 11:56:36 AM
The lead designer for Fury is was still leading MMO developments after Fury went bankrupt  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 12:12:43 PM
I would probably have actually played Morrowind if it had tab-target hotbar combat.  :-P

The only TES game I actually really liked was Skyrim, and even there the combat is more tolerable than good. Mostly an exercise in getting to the point where I can one-shot stuff so I can do the interesting part of the game. So, it isn't correct to say that *nobody* would want traditional MMO combat in a TES game, because I exist.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 12, 2012, 12:22:50 PM
But you are not an Elder Scrolls fan, Ingmar. Now that I think about it, you are probably the target audience. People who heard a lot about TES but never bothered to play because... it was TES. There's a huge untapped pool of non-TES players out there (probably larger than the TES players) that they want to suck in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 12, 2012, 12:29:15 PM
Skyrim has the best combat of any TES game and it's still pretty mediocre at best (The combat, not the game itself). I'd be more for something like Tera or the <X> Souls games.

I'll likely buy this thing though and check out everything PVE until the endgame though. SWTOR was a disappointment at the end but getting there was pretty cool and I'll flat out say I had fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 12:34:13 PM
But you are not an Elder Scrolls fan, Ingmar. Now that I think about it, you are probably the target audience. People who heard a lot about TES but never bothered to play because... it was TES. There's a huge untapped pool of non-TES players out there (probably larger than the TES players) that they want to suck in.

I started Morrowind, played Oblivion and Skyrim all the way through, and I like the setting and the lore stuff quite a lot. I just never liked the games mechanically, especially the combat and skill system, until Skyrim. (It helps that Skyrim finally has character models that don't cause physical pain to look at...)

I think of myself as at least a fan of the setting, and I like the exploration aspects of the games a lot - just not the mechanics.

EDIT: In general though I do agree with the prospect that they're better off trying to hook their core people first. The thing about people like me who are MMO hotbar combat fans is there are already good games on the market that have that style that we're already playing and we will be hard to pull away.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 12, 2012, 12:37:08 PM
I would probably have actually played Morrowind if it had tab-target hotbar combat.  :-P

The only TES game I actually really liked was Skyrim, and even there the combat is more tolerable than good. Mostly an exercise in getting to the point where I can one-shot stuff so I can do the interesting part of the game. So, it isn't correct to say that *nobody* would want traditional MMO combat in a TES game, because I exist.  :grin:
Pretty much this. I love the concept of the older TES games (huge open world, etc), but the actual combat has always been a let-down for me - even in Skyrim, which was actually sorta okay combat-wise. I loved the heck out of Fallout 3 and especially New Vegas though, so there's hope for Bethesda yet!

(yeah yeah I know, NV was Obsidian... but still)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 12:39:39 PM
The real time clicky combat works much better with guns, yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 12, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
I consider myself a TES fan, but not because of the combat; a huge, explorable world and a skill-based rather than class-based advancement system are probably the two biggest draws for me. Given that TES:O has classes I'm probably not going to bother, since it goes against the spirit of the franchise to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
Sure, the fact I never see blackwulf posting ANYWHERE but this thread, and all he posts is "I THINK ESO WILL BE TEH GREATEST EVAR!!!!" he sounds like a fucking mole. I don't think he is a mole, but reading posts that only knobslob a game for all the reasons anyone else experienced with MMOG's would say are the reasons you shouldn't trust it would be good gets really irritating.

Experienced MMO devs? NOT A PLUS. MMO devs are worse than government appointees for failing upwards before crashing and burning with someone else's money. MMO success is like the flaming crotchrot. Getting it is fun, but it'll eventually lead to the screaming wiggle death.

The thread has been interesting today, and I don't want to bog it down with a bunch of shit about me, but since several of you have brought it up, here we go:  I pretty much have only posted in this thread because since I made my account, earlier this year, there hasn't been a lot in the MMO arena that is interesting to me.  I posted a bit in the Mechwarrior thread, but it doesn't seem to really be an MMO, and I don't wanna get into that kinda game atm.  I've lurked in many threads, but haven't had anything I considered interesting to add the conversation.  I passed on GW2, cause GW1 left a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the asian art style.  I passed on TERA because the candy coated theme park I experienced in the beta made me throw up a little.  I deleted SWTOR with pleasure after a month of sub, and now I'm back to playing old DDO off and on while I wait for the "next" MMO.  I guess mentally, I've decided the next one for me is going to be ESO.  However, I recently hear that "Everquest Next" is supposedly being completely revamped as a sandbox (!!) - if that's the case, I might start spending a lot more of my lurking and posting time on forums/threads about that game.

Haemish, I never have said anything quite like you quoted up above.  :wink: Granted I have high hopes for this game, but I've listed my reasons pretty clearly.  I'm not a mole, and I'm not a huge fan of anything, but I do consider myself a fan of Elder Scrolls - I remember my first time playing Arena and since then I've loved the series.  I have, however, hated the console "dumbing" down of the series.  I was also a huge fan of DAOC.  Hours spent online in DAOC probably equal hours spent in every other game combined.  When I heard many of the orginal DAOC devs were making this game in a Elder Scrolls world, of course I got excited.  I'm still optimistic.  We'll see how it turns out.

After reading the more constructive posts in this thread today, I'm finding that my disconnect with some of you stems from the fact that many of you were/are Elder Scrolls fans, but not necessarily DAOC fans.  Makes sense to me.  Hopefully they won't blow the game for people like you, but it sure is a possibility.  It seems like Matt is pretty set on the end game 3 way war being the focal point.  I'm glad about this, but can understand people not being too happy with it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 03:41:47 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 12, 2012, 03:44:26 PM
I get that they want to broaden their IP into the MMO market, seems to be the thing to do, but this just feels like every other MMO in the past decade with the TES logo slapped on it. I think it's going to end up in the same situation the big IP MMOs that took a leap into the genre in the past few years and I don't really want to see that happen. Thing is, I'm not sure how they could prevent that from happening anyway. Turning what's best about an Elder Scrolls title into an MMO experience already feels like several steps backwards.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 12, 2012, 03:58:57 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.
Is that praise for GW2 from Ingmar? <faints>

:-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 12, 2012, 04:17:40 PM
I'm... one of those broken people who actually likes the combat in TES games. Yes, even in Daggerfall and Morrowind. Skyrim kind of soured on me after the honeymoon wore off, but I imagine I'll go back to it after all of its shitty DLC is out. Morrowind's one of those games I can always pick up and play whenever, like Baldur's Gate or the old Mega Man games. It's comfort food for me now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 04:26:23 PM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.
Is that praise for GW2 from Ingmar? <faints>

:-P

Sure! I like all the parts that aren't shitty!  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 05:15:51 PM
I don't mind the combat in TES games, but it certainly isn't the reason I play them.  I like the freedom and the fact that I don't have to do the main storyline to see the whole game (or most of it).  But frankly, even with the best of intentions, the game just won't be the same when you've got 30 people strafe jumping around town.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on November 12, 2012, 10:05:30 PM
Still waiting on my Betrayal at Krondor MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 13, 2012, 02:21:10 AM
I should be more interested in this than I am.

It has the correct number of realms, also rvr.

The retrofitted player aim sounds like a terrible idea. Someone should make a thread about how they did that in swg.

The big problem might be the elder scrolls franchise. Which I associate with the colours grey and brown, and with micromanaging my inventory of turnips.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 13, 2012, 03:38:35 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 06:29:22 AM
Have you played Skyrim?

Skyrim combat is infinity better then any standard tab target system. It also removed the need to kill 10 rats, because the combat is much more engaging then standard MMO combat. Kill 10 rats is a symptom of the boring ass MMO combat where they need to pile on the numbers of goals to make it seem like you accomplished something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 06:58:03 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?

What did I just say in that quote about Morrowind's miss mechanic? Honestly. I worry about you at times.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 13, 2012, 07:14:29 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?

What did I just say in that quote about Morrowind's miss mechanic? Honestly. I worry about you at times.
Uh, you still just plant in front of an enemy and click your attack button until the enemy dies. Dice-roll hits or not, it's still the least engaging combat system ever.

Skyrim's combat is about as engaging. Except sometimes you sidestep magic or arrows. And you can click longer for a hard attack and not as long for a quick one. And while you don't miss by dice rolls, enemies that are tough just take almost no damage which may as well be the same thing. I'm just saying no TES game has had what I would call a "good" combat system despite me liking the series a whole lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 07:26:05 AM
No, the least engaging combat system is one that attacks for you while you occasionally click a number.

Look TES is no Mount and Blade, but it's a step up from the standard RPG crap system from two decades ago. Some people love that shit and want to get in a time machine. I do not.

With each iteration of the TES series, the combat has improved. This online version would be the first step back IF it's not done the way we've suggested.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 08:22:49 AM
I'm my range of combat. There is: MMO TAB target ------------ Eldar scrolls -------------------Mount and blade.

MMO combat creates situation where its not about the encounter or over coming it, its about an endurance battle with yourself. This leads to the boring questing we see. After 10 years for me personally, im mostly done. Elder scrolls combat creates a new type of questing, where the battle is the challenge, not the amount you need to kill or collect. Its an active combat system that good enough as a next evolution. Mount and Blade style combat would be even better, as each battle is more dangerous, even if you are "low level", levels, another symptom of MMO combat, but i digress.

Mount and blade style combat i think would be a hard sell, as awesome as it is, it really does take time to master. It would turn off many users instantly. Skyim style is the best of both worlds IMO.

There has been a real push for a bit now to moving to a more visceral, action based systems in online games. Shooters being the current most prevalent, but we see soft targeting with games like AOC and that other asian one, games like Vindicious and others. This is a trend I hope continues.

That being said, nothing about this combat system seems fitting for an elder scrolls game, it seems watered down to convert the Wow player. Another things that's a trend I really think is the future, is the voice overs. We see this more and more, failed or not. To keep up with the experiences of single player games, and the short on reading trend of most gamers, any new game needs to really consider doing it.

Does TESO have voice overs like its single player predecessors, or with it be an even shorter than wow's 250 limit to align with attention spans? IF its not voiced over, I feel they are doing it wrong. In The Elder Scrolls, reading is for the books, not the quests.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 11:20:44 AM
Skyrim combat is infinity better then any standard tab target system. It also removed the need to kill 10 rats, because the combat is much more engaging then standard MMO combat. Kill 10 rats is a symptom of the boring ass MMO combat where they need to pile on the numbers of goals to make it seem like you accomplished something.

OK are you just making shit up now? Because if your contention is that the TES games don't have their share of boring MMO style quests, you're just plain wrong. BRB gathering 25 crimson nirnroot.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 11:42:51 AM
I can safely ignore those, and have fun combat that is about the encounter, not the numbers. MMO combat means that's all you get. Perhaps I am not explaining something clearly. But your comment does not invalidate anything I have said.

Its the difference of the quest being the fun, not just the reward because the combat is face-roll. I also do not recall stabbing a ninroot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 11:50:28 AM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 11:55:05 AM
Because the entire encounter is more engaging, and that's just the fight. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 11:58:00 AM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.

I think his argument is that he enjoys Skyrim's gameplay more, and that therefore the quests act just as a pointer towards a place where there is fun gameplay, rather than completing the quest for its own sake (i.e. the contrived reason it is there to begin with, xp/loot) being the gameplay...  I'm not 100% sure I've interpreted it right.

I mean, this is what quests were originally meant to be right?  Pointers towards interesting stuff so that players didn't have to wander around for hours to find interesting bits in the game world, or alternatively sit on the one good farming spot because it was ideal for exp farming.  But modern questing has gone past that either way to being the goal in and of itself.  Completing arbitrary tasks has basically become the name of the game in MMOs.  It isn't about DOING them, it is about COMPLETING, them.  I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 13, 2012, 12:09:23 PM
Counterpoints: [player created] missions in COH, IAs / rifts / dynamic quests / invasions in Rift, DE chains in GW2. I'm sure there are many more examples. "Hotkey combat" isn't associated with kill-10-rats and vice versa.

To some people (me included), having access to 20 or so different abilities I can use strategically (and yes, with good timing / movement) is more engaging and fun than flailing around with a sword and failing to hit something in front of me because I have 400 ping. In other news, different people like different things. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 12:43:12 PM
Your right. Public quests are just a bunch of people who happen to be in the same spot. Thats only compelling, because its better than standard MMO quests. Nothing more. You get a reward for showing up, or passing through. Not what I would call a solution.

I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.

Mostly correct. But I tie it to the combat. The combat itself is the "game", you have to sneak up, shoot, or manage the battle ETC... One dude in Skyrim is harder than 20 rats in a typical MMO in terms of challenge, or even fun. I do not mean challenge as in having all the right gear, but in having good control over strikes and such. Its more compelling, challenging. The encounter is more interactive, you do not need to add in the requirement of lots of kills of one type, or random numbers of legs on boars. Ninroot is a collection quest. Its an exception, not the rule. Where MMO combat makes every quest a Ninroot quest. ad nauseum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 12:46:10 PM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.

That's why if TES goes standard combat tab-target in a fantasy world with 3 factions, they are doomed. Not because it's a bad idea, or because people don't like that particular style, it's because people are absolutely bored of it even if they don't want to admit it out loud. They won't stick around in massive numbers to support a monthly sub. On top of that, a F2P title doesn't really generate the revenue necessary to make this a great plan for a well-known studio, when the alternative is to dump assets into another TES Single player game in Hammerfel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 12:49:26 PM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.

I think his argument is that he enjoys Skyrim's gameplay more, and that therefore the quests act just as a pointer towards a place where there is fun gameplay, rather than completing the quest for its own sake (i.e. the contrived reason it is there to begin with, xp/loot) being the gameplay...  I'm not 100% sure I've interpreted it right.

I mean, this is what quests were originally meant to be right?  Pointers towards interesting stuff so that players didn't have to wander around for hours to find interesting bits in the game world, or alternatively sit on the one good farming spot because it was ideal for exp farming.  But modern questing has gone past that either way to being the goal in and of itself.  Completing arbitrary tasks has basically become the name of the game in MMOs.  It isn't about DOING them, it is about COMPLETING, them.  I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.

No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 12:52:49 PM
No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.

More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats. Because the combat would be the compelling part. I also think you are forgetting the other part of what makes Skyrim combat compelling. To complete a quest have many, MANY avenues of completion, because of the combat. In a Typical MMO, no other way to do something. That troll is not 1 of 5 I have to kill. It is THE POINT of the quest and it may well end very badly.

In one assassination quest I can:
Back stab.
Bow shot.
Magic kill.
Frontal assault.
Persuade.
ETC..

In an MMO Ii can:
Kill the 10 rats.


When I say kill 10 rats. Im using that as a catch all for MMO quests. Who's design is because the combat is not fun, but rather just a system to fill up the progress bar. In Skyrim, I have to go toe to toe with someone or something. That's a big difference.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
In M&B the quests are to kill bandits. I don't mind this because I'm decapitating bandits while riding around on my badass warsteed with my roaming band of badasses.

What I'm not doing is finding bandits on the map, going into "combat mode" and hitting 1-4-7-3-1-2 until the bandits fall over.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 12:59:17 PM
In M&B the quests are to kill bandits. I don't mind this because I'm decapitating bandit while riding around on my badass warsteed with my roaming band of badasses.

And landing the hits like a boss.

You also cited possibly the worst use of your time in M&B. Like, the worst "quest" in the entire game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 01:31:28 PM
No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.

More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats. Because the combat would be the compelling part. I also think you are forgetting the other part of what makes Skyrim combat compelling. To complete a quest have many, MANY avenues of completion, because of the combat. In a Typical MMO, no other way to do something. That troll is not 1 of 5 I have to kill. It is THE POINT of the quest and it may well end very badly.

In one assassination quest I can:
Back stab.
Bow shot.
Magic kill.
Frontal assault.
Persuade.
ETC..

In an MMO Ii can:
Kill the 10 rats.


When I say kill 10 rats. Im using that as a catch all for MMO quests. Who's design is because the combat is not fun, but rather just a system to fill up the progress bar. In Skyrim, I have to go toe to toe with someone or something. That's a big difference.

I think you're using 'combat system' when you mean a bunch of other systems that aren't the combat system. Everything you mention could be designed into a hotbar, tab-target game. Hotbar, targeted combat does not mean that a character can't have a ranged attack and a melee attack, nor does it mean you can't have characters that can learn weapons and magic both, nor does it mean it can't have a dialogue system where you talk your way out of things, nor does it mean there can't be stealth gameplay. It doesn't mean any of the things you're describing, none of that has anything to do with the combat system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 13, 2012, 01:37:37 PM
Yea... I'm sorry, but the 'hotbar combat = kill 10 rats' stuff reads like a lot of wharrgarbl to me.  :ye_gods:

BTW, I found GW2 events and stuff to be a lot more dynamic than Skyrim (especially the radiant quests, ugh). I go explore some place on my own, find a wounded scout, escort her back through various dangers, this turns into an attack on some encampment, we lose the fight due to not enough people, the enemies retaliate and we have to defend a settlement, etc. While doing this, I uncover several new areas and possible anchor points for other events. At no point does an exclamation mark or quest text pop up on my screen - some of this I do solo, other times I'm helped by other people who happen to be in the same area. During this, I alternate between heavy damage, support and control as needed, it's definitely not "tab target next mob and do max dps rotation".

Ditto Rift (Ember Isle and up). I wander around, see a zone-wide invasion happening, I head towards the big bad's icon on the minimap. Meanwhile I stumble on a town being zerged so I switch gears into my healing spec and help the defenders stave off the attack. After the invasion, I join an Instant Adventure and get grouped with some people doing an IA chain leading up to a miniboss or a defend-the-wardstone event. I'm pretty sure clicking on "!"s from questgivers in Rift is only necessary if you want to read the story - which isn't much different from meeting some underdressed Norn mage lady in a dungeon and escorting her through the dungeon that you were going to clear anyway (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:A_Scroll_For_Anska). And Rift is the "best WOW that is not WOW".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 13, 2012, 03:05:24 PM
More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI58jazkbCY


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 13, 2012, 03:13:00 PM
Tasks feel arbitrary in MMOs because they don't appear to impact anything except your xp bar and because you end up repeating them ad infinitum.

It has nothing to do with d&d d20 derived combat. In fact a specific hot bar combat character generally gives you more ways to kill 10 foozles than an elder scrolls game.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 13, 2012, 03:39:35 PM
You wouldn't necessarily need the "kill 10 rats" quest if the combat was fun enough to be rewarding by itself. You may still end up killing 10 rats (bandits/gorillas/dinosaurs/whatever) but that wouldn't be the explicit *goal*. Think Skyrim: you kill X enemies in a place, but it wasn't why you went there. You're really motivated to be there other things (exploration, loot, curiosity) than a simple kill quest. In most cases you still had a quest to go there, but the experience was fun enough that it didn't feel like checking off a box for a small XP bonus. The game did not need to give you 20 quests for each 'hub' because one simple breadcrumb was enough to get you to a place where you could enjoy the parts of the game that were actually fun. I don't know that I'd agree that combat in Skyrim was really one of the big motivators, but it certainly is in a game like Monster Hunter. Each 20-40 minute gameplay session begins with a very simple quest, "kill/capture X". It doesn't feel anything like the MMO grind. If the experience is fun enough you don't need to give people 20 artificial reasons to continue playing in each zone they visit.

TERA was a pretty great test for this. The combat was (comparative to other MMOs) fantastic but it was weighed down by pages and pages of boring text. I would have been happier with the game if it just said "Go explore the pirate ship at the end of this cave" rather than giving me 10 generic quests for the cave and forcing me to sit through NPC dialogue I could not make myself care about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 13, 2012, 03:52:11 PM
If you want to get all pedantic, all computer games are "push butan til ded"   FPS:  Mouselook -> Push shoot button till dead.   TES/ M&B:  Get close, push swing button until dead.  DIKU MMO: Push skill button until dead.

It's funny how only one is being distilled to the minimalist level above while the others are raised upon high.  Maybe because the player is burnt out on the one system, not because the system is more flawed than another.  Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 13, 2012, 04:40:45 PM
Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.

I don't think that's it. FPS combat hasn't really changed much in the past decade but the genre is still booming. Ancient games like Counter-strike still top the most-played list on Steam. It is not inevitable that every combat system eventually gets boring, but the bad ones certainly do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 04:53:02 PM
Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.

I don't think that's it. FPS combat hasn't really changed much in the past decade but the genre is still booming. Ancient games like Counter-strike still top the most-played list on Steam. It is not inevitable that every combat system eventually gets boring, but the bad ones certainly do.

This is really the heart of the matter for me.  I can play RTS and Shooters basically indefinitely, but RPGs which hypothetically give me an entire virtual world, just get old after a while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 13, 2012, 06:29:31 PM
Yes, and the exact same people are playing them as obsessively as ever, 6-8 hours at a time?  No.

Yes, they have changed significantly in the last 10 years.  Skills, classes, unlocks, cover, stealth play, vehicles and that's just what I know since I don't do FPS games regularly.  You're saying FPS games haven't advanced or changed significantly since Battlefield 1942 and that's just false.

ed: The really funny part is this isn't even the first time I've seen this argument.  Raph was saying the exact same thing 7 years ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 07:44:58 PM


Yes, they have changed significantly in the last 10 years.  Skills, classes, unlocks, cover, stealth play, vehicles and that's just what I know since I don't do FPS games regularly.  You're saying FPS games haven't advanced or changed significantly since Battlefield 1942 and that's just false.


Counter Strike..literally the original half life mod Counter Strike is still in the top 5 or 10 daily most played games on steam.  Every day.  In 2012. and 2011. And, well you get the point.  Shit, most days ALL THREE counter strike games are in the top 10.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 13, 2012, 08:59:59 PM
And Call of Duty/Battlefield/(insert modern FPS title) are VERY different than CS; also, way more people are playing CoD on consoles than people playing CS on PC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 13, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
And Call of Duty/Battlefield/(insert modern FPS title) are VERY different than CS.

I just don't agree with this. The basic gameplay is the same. There are nuanced differences, but you could say the same about hotbar combat MMOs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 12:32:55 AM
Because the entire encounter is more engaging for me, and that's just the fight. 

ftfy


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 12:36:15 AM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.



Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 14, 2012, 05:58:21 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.

The difference between tab targetting and FPS style attacking is how involved you are in the combat.  Tab targeting with RNG usually becomes more strategic, you're more concerned with what ability you need to use on which enemy at which time and executing your abilities.  FPS style attacking is more about trying to get your attacks in while dodging incoming attacks, but you are usually using less abilities. 

Different people find the different paces of each style more interesting.  News at 11


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 06:01:58 AM
What are we objecting to here? The use of the tab key or the concept of aim being a character rather than player skill? I ask, because both objections seem fucking ridiculous.

Or do we hate xcom now and have fond memories of aiming in tabletop DnD by throwing physical projectiles at NPC minatures.

If it is claiming to be a character RPG seems daft to be complaining about character skill rolls. If you prefer Diablo combat there are plenty of games that do that. Diablo for a start.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
They're complaining that they're tired of character-based-skill and want a player-skill-based game but don't realize it.  So instead it's focused on "Tab Targeting!" and "Hotbar combat!" instead.

Counter Strike..literally the original half life mod Counter Strike is still in the top 5 or 10 daily most played games on steam.  Every day.  In 2012. and 2011. And, well you get the point.  Shit, most days ALL THREE counter strike games are in the top 10.

If you want to go by player numbers per day you're really going to lose whatever it is you're pushing.  I'd recommend dropping that line of thinking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 06:47:37 AM
I think Bloodworth is talking about is that when you have to aim and position yourself the very act of combat (no matter what your objective is) is enjoyable.  Where as tab target and hotbar combat is usually less engaging.

I agree with him, but not because one combat system is better than the other, what is really beneath the surface is Mob AI!

In a tab target/hotbar combat system, NPC mobs (unless you're in a raid/dungeon boss setting) are retarded.  They stand there and do their attacks and you stand there and do yours and most of the time you win.  The only time combat is engaging is when you "kite" stuff, which is really not a designed mechanic most of the time.  If you juice up the AI a bit, and make the skills/spells you have more reactive or behavior modified based you'll have a more engaging combat system (GW2 did this and it's why their combat system is superior to WOW/WOWclones; it's actually a hybrid of the two).

In a game like TERA or Skyrim or and FPS, where combat is based off of aiming and positions and dodging, you have NPCs that actually "act".  They hide, they run, then dodge, you dodge etc.  You are actually engaged and using your brain when you are fighting and gain more joy out of the singular experience.

Now to go even further, the target/hotbar system is so fucking dull, designers have to give you other things to do.  Instead of making engaging encounters the norm, they give you list of mundane things to do.  Combat is a means to the end; a way to get that +1.  In the "action-y" type of systems, the combat itself is the enjoyment and you can then design your game, not of kill 100 things, but of killing 2 or 3.

The reason why TERA failed is that they created a great combat system, but kept all the mundane bullshit of the tab target/hobar system in place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 06:55:32 AM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.
Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?

I didn't say it was a failure. It's not hyperbole at all to say that a tab-target game hasn't captured the 10M user audience of WoW.

Financially, however, GW2 is a different beast. It's based entirely on box sales, which makes it roughly in the same market as any other game release. It's also published by a Korean company that handles a slightly different market contingent for its games. GW2 made about $42M in sales for NC Soft per their recent financial release in Nov 7th. Only 16% of their overall income for that quarter was from the US.

All that being said, revenues were still down for the company, and income was down compared to the prior year even with the GW2 release. The stock has taken a hit as a result. Was it a failure? No. Was it the success that NC Soft wanted? No.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 07:33:37 AM
I think people are forgetting. All things in games go back to the player class. Combat is not just a set of abilities. Its the AI, Environment, the animations, everything hinges on the player. Trying to compare the static, littered with mobs waiting to die environment of a MMO, where the environment itself barely has anything to do with anything. To Skyrim where the environment and AI has a huge effect in what makes up the combat system is silly.

The combination of the Environment, story and actions you can preform make it superior. The lack of thees things leads to ever increasing numbers of requirements because that's all there is, its not about the encounter ( with possible exception of raids ) its about completion, no matter how rote it is.

In the above linked video, environment means jack and shit. The player presses on button and walks past an entire room of waiting to die Mobs. Trying to compare than with the player choice of using sneaking and stealth, and the hugely more difficult act of preforming to accomplish the goal in a system of combat and environment requires more self awareness, situational awareness and environmental awareness is a huge stretch.

The latter is simply a more compelling combat and system, removing the need to pile on more and more mundane, and frankly pointless quest requirements. I have never killed a troll in Skyrim to find out he lacks limbs to harvest.

Now to go even further, the target/hotbar system is so fucking dull, designers have to give you other things to do.  Instead of making engaging encounters the norm, they give you list of mundane things to do.  Combat is a means to the end; a way to get that +1.  In the "action-y" type of systems, the combat itself is the enjoyment and you can then design your game, not of kill 100 things, but of killing 2 or 3.

Exactly.

character-based-skill and want a player-skill-based game but don't realize it.

I fully fucking realize it, thanks! I am speaking of the surrounding requirements, and features that go with it.  Combat is not isolated to what you have on your hot bar, nor is it isolated to left clicking.

The difference between tab targetting and FPS style attacking is how involved you are in the combat.  Tab targeting with RNG usually becomes more strategic, you're more concerned with what ability you need to use on which enemy at which time and executing your abilities.  FPS style attacking is more about trying to get your attacks in while dodging incoming attacks, but you are usually using less abilities. 

Yes. And one requires an entirely different set of features around it. When the player is active and reactive dodging attacks and landing hits, or dealing with the environment. It does not necessitate you harvest 40 entrails from beasts that may or may not have entrails, but still poop.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 09:00:58 AM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level.  Good luck finding an MMO that caters exclusively to high-skill crowd.

Both your and Draegan's entire last posts can be summed up as, "Combat is too easy because they have to account for terrible players."    If they don't, they can't pay their bills.  A symptom of the player base, not the genre.

Could they develop a high-skill game using RPG mechanics that meets your complaints? Sure, but it'd better be F2P or have a really low overhead and development cost because the subs and cash shop won't be raking it in.  Lower the overhead too much, though, and hello hacks out the ass!

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.  Not one with NPCs at least. Who are the NPCs going to react to when there's a 'stealth threat' or they find  a body?  You alone?  Well now I just have to wait until some shlub puts everyone on alert and run in to get my objective.   Just like good ol' Karnor in EQ.   Send 2-3 your way and the rest wait 'on guard' in case there's another shlub? Oh no, that's what you were complaining about.

You're just ranting to rant and bitching to bitch with no solutions offered and no alternatives, which is why I just realized I had a discussion with myself in the last 2 paragraphs. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 09:42:30 AM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level.

No. I'm not. You just seem to want to take this as some kind of fight. There are pros and cons to each system. Some people like one, and some the other. Thats not really what i have been talking about at all. I have been talking about the designs of each that surrounds them.

But yes, at the end of the day and conversation I am personally tired of MMORPG combat, and think the precedence that all MMO's need to use it, by reason of player expectation or tech limitations, is wrong. Thankfully the trend is changing.

Its just a shame, one title that by nature of its predecessors should demand it, will not be apart of it from what I have seen.

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.

Look around, its already changing in small steps. MMORPG combat was created to emulate in an asynchronous environment to simulate DnD like combat and was heavy restricted by technology. It now trudges on because of this history, not because the tech does not exist to do anything more.

I welcome the day where DnD like combat is more action oriented and hidden to the player, I do not really Consider Today's MMORPG system related to DnD anymore, its its own beast of contradictions to add "depth". More so than 90 skills and abilities can be hidden. The Elder scrolls do a decent job already. You do not need 90 skills that are situational flavors of the same thing. And dumb AI needs to die, MMOrpg AI seems to be the way it is, not because of any limitation, but because of an expectation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 10:44:22 AM
The fight is with the folks who keep bitching without providing answers.  You admit to being tired of MMO combat. Great, you're a minority as others were saying it was always terrible and FPS is King, yo!  I misunderstood your stance and lumped you in with them.  I agree with you, all have pros and cons it's a question of what you're designing for.  Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

So what's your alternative?

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.

Look around, its already changing in small steps. MMORPG combat was created to emulate in an asynchronous environment to simulate DnD like combat and was heavy restricted by technology. It now trudges on because of this history, not because the tech does not exist to do anything more.

/quote]

As it changes it's also becoming more single player or small-party multiplayer and less MMO.  I'd rather not have an always-on SP or Max 8-player game with DLC back end!  Thankfully Blizzard shot the notion of this being a widespread model in the foot for at least another 4 years.  Not that there isn't a market for it but it's not the MMO market.

The tech may exist but good luck with the connections.  The LOLZ MOVE OUT OF THE STICKS trolls that happend in the D3 threads prior to release were precious.  Latency is still an issue and will remain one in the online game space for the foreseeable future. Even those places that aren't "In the sticks" must deal with the oversold networks of greedy I-Providers.

Lunch is over that's all I've got for now


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 10:57:25 AM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.

Alternatives are already here. We have Hybrids, FPS, "Actiony", what ever you want to call your flavor. Look around. Its now time for user perception to change. Change is coming, and its about god dam time.

EDIT: As for the last part of your post, that I did not realize was a response. Dude. Its happening, no matter how much you trot out the old limited tech excuse. Its wrong now, it was only slightly wrong before. Personal BFE connection is not an excuse. We are past the 56k era.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 11:14:04 AM
Arguing that replacing character skill rolls with player skill is inherently a shift forward as opposed to a genre choice is precisely as stupid as arguing that turn based is never as good as real time, or that 3D movies are a better way to watch than 2D.

It's 1998 again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 11:22:19 AM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR. It isn't different in any noticeable way, except when it is worse (Skyrim dragon flies in circles for 10 minutes, occasionally stopping to fry a deer, ignoring player putting arrows into it.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 11:22:28 AM
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

Uh, Call of Duty Elite numbers a userbase over 12M people. The answer is simple. Put action combat into MMOs. It's already in some of the most popular multiplayer games of all time.

I mean I look at something simple like the combat from Jedi Knight 2 from over a decade ago, and wonder how hard that model is to put into an MMO?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 11:24:18 AM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.

Alternatives are already here. We have Hybrids, FPS, "Actiony", what ever you want to call your flavor. Look around. Its now time for user perception to change. Change is coming, and its about god dam time.

EDIT: As for the last part of your post, that I did not realize was a response. Dude. Its happening, no matter how much you trot out the old limited tech excuse. Its wrong now, it was only slightly wrong before. Personal BFE connection is not an excuse. We are past the 56k era.

Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 11:26:18 AM
Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.

No Contest. /thread


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
Haemish, I never have said anything quite like you quoted up above.  :wink: Granted I have high hopes for this game, but I've listed my reasons pretty clearly. 

And the reasons that it will be great that YOU have posted are all the reasons you should be wary of this product as someone whose stated experience covers many of the larger MMO's of the last decade.

Quote
I was also a huge fan of DAOC.

As was I. Frankly, I could STILL be playing DAOC and still have the urge to occasionally but one thing stops me. The shitastic leveling curve with UTTERLY BORING PVE. I cannot fucking stand leveling in DAoC. The most fun I ever had in that game wasn't at release (although that was a lot of fun as I led a guild) - it was when I came back a few years afterwards and they'd added the battlegrounds. The level 20 RVR battleground was fantastic because they'd just introduced the "make a character level at level 20 and here's one free level of EXP a week" thing. The battleground was active and the RVR was great. Then I leveled out of that narrow band and found the other battlegrounds barren and had to try to level to 50 to be any use in the open RVR zones. I made it to level 32 before just fucking giving up.


Quote
When I heard many of the orginal DAOC devs were making this game in a Elder Scrolls world, of course I got excited.  I'm still optimistic.  We'll see how it turns out.

This is actually one of the HUGE reasons I'm so down on the game. Being executive producer on a game whose level grind was SO GRINDY that I gave up long before max level means you probably don't have a good grip on what I like in PVE anyway. Also DAoC's PVE was mind-numbingly boring. It took all the camp/pull mentality of EQ and made it slower and more grindy. And what I saw in that video you linked was combat that looked equally as boring as DAoC's combat. So again, all the reasons you've posted for the game being great are all the reasons I think the game will be deriviative, cliched boring shit.

I HOPE I'm wrong. That's actually the exact kind of disappointment I'm looking for.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 11:29:26 AM
Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.

No Contest. /thread
I mean that sort of seriously, honestly. It may have been super fun to play but I'll never know, because I won't play a game that looks like that. And I play nearly every MMO at least on a trial basis. I guarantee they lost a lot of other opportunities like me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 11:30:17 AM
I did not mean it seriously.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 14, 2012, 11:41:50 AM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR. It isn't different in any noticeable way, except when it is worse (Skyrim dragon flies in circles for 10 minutes, occasionally stopping to fry a deer, ignoring player putting arrows into it.)
Yeah, this. My stealth archer used the same 'tactic' of kiting and running away while pew pewing stuff from level 1 to 30 (to be fair, I did get to do it in slo-mo once my skill got high enough), whether I was facing draugr, a high-level vampire caster, or a dragon. On tougher enemies maybe I needed to maybe use some power-up potions and poisons first and use the knockback shout against multiple enemies.

As for a variety of ways to approach a situation, I definitely didn't have the option to use melee or magic in any meaningful situation on my archer... I don't think swinging a melee weapon at 3 skill would've done more than amuse the dragon while it was busy nom nomming on the idiot in front of it.  :awesome_for_real:

edit:
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

Uh, Call of Duty Elite numbers a userbase over 12M people. The answer is simple. Put action combat into MMOs. It's already in some of the most popular multiplayer games of all time.

I mean I look at something simple like the combat from Jedi Knight 2 from over a decade ago, and wonder how hard that model is to put into an MMO?
Man, I'd kill for a game with JK2 combat again. In a mmo with latency though? Eh, the thought of playing a rogue in WOW makes me rage as it is. (it's not just a "get better internet noob" problem, it's a "lol you live in Hungary lol" problem that I can't fix unless I emigrate... so yeah)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 14, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.
I like WoW-style questing systems but TERA's quests and world are just really boring (though nice to look at).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

This is a good point and it explains why games like League of Legends and Call of Duty are doing so poorly.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 12:35:04 PM
It wasn't Merusk's finest hour on that one, but we can forgive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 12:43:03 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

The point is there is a target market that enjoys other forms of action combat at even higher numbers than the tab-target, regardless of the game's genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 14, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
I think that the targeting method is less important than the slope of the learning curve.  Make the curve too steep and your title instantly becomes niche regardless of the targeting type. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 01:30:11 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

I don't think you can say this either. Of the current crop of MMOs, those with traditional tab-target action bar combat are more popular. I think that says more about the quality of those games than it does about combat preferences. TERA is the only recent MMO that has gone for more skill-based or action combat, but there were plenty of things going against that game besides the combat which have already been mentioned in this thread (controversial aesthetic, boring quests, unpopular Korean-MMO mechanics, etc.).

League of Legends is basically MMO battlegrounds without the boring combat and unfair persistent items, and it's arguably the most popular game in the world right now. MMORPG elements like leveling, classes, and equipment have even seeped into annual console shooters and proven extremely popular. One of the most popular games this season, Borderlands 2, is only a few steps away from being considered an MMO. Saying that LoL or CoD players would not be interested in an MMO offering similar style combat seems pretty narrow-minded.

I think Titan will end up being the true test of this. I think they realize that action-bar combat has gained what audience it could and that the genre has started to stagnate. If you were Blizzard, would you really make another game that played like WoW? We may finally see an MMO that evolves combat and actually has some money behind it, which has the potential to capture a wider audience and refresh the genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

The point is there is a target market that enjoys other forms of action combat at even higher numbers than the tab-target, regardless of the game's genre.

But the fact that they enjoy that gameplay says nothing at all about whether they enjoy any of the OTHER things that make an MMO an MMO. You can't draw the conclusion that there's a huge market of unserved MMO fans who want action combat, just because a whole lot of people are playing a non-MMO with action combat. They may hate everything else that goes into an MMO, it isn't a safe assumption to make.

Rokal, any argument that starts with "League of Legends is an MMO..." is one I can't take seriously. It isn't. It's a multiplayer game, yes. 10 people on a map does not an MMO make, there's no character persistency, etc., etc., etc. It's less of an MMO than non-MMOs like Borderlands or Diablo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 01:45:30 PM
It wasn't a safe assumption that a 5M in WC3 sales would translate to a tab target combat if you took out the stupid grind and put in casual questing. Turned out 12M jumped in. It wasn't a safe assumption that a market existed for a game console that was entirely based around flailing your arms like a jackass instead of the traditional controller. 97 million units later, turned out there was a massive demand.

At some point, somebody has to break the MMO mold with a solid IP, good financial backing, and not do the same old shit. They have to try the type of combat you've always guessed would be loved by a huge amount of gamers. I fully expect that's what Titan will actually do, but we won't know for a while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
Rokal, any argument that starts with "League of Legends is an MMO..." is one I can't take seriously. It isn't. It's a multiplayer game, yes. 10 people on a map does not an MMO make, there's no character persistency, etc., etc., etc. It's less of an MMO than non-MMOs like Borderlands or Diablo.

It's a multiplayer game, played with/against a massive pool of players, with persistent leveling (your 'summoner'), gear, and different "classes" (champions) to pick from and level up. It would be like arguing that WoW suddenly was is longer an MMO when battlegrounds are played with template characters. Or that Rift suddenly stopped being an MMO when they normalized gear levels and there was no way to progress your character's gear or level between matches.

Trying to define whether the game qualifies as an MMO isn't a helpful direction to bring the conversation in any case. Regardless of what you want to call it, it offers a *very* similar gameplay format to MMO battlegrounds but has completely eclipsed MMOs in popularity. You can think about whether the different style of combat has anything to do with that, or you can argue semantics.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

And all that stuff you *don't* have to do, is what MMO fans like about MMOs. It gives them a sense of 'this is my character' that all those other games utterly lack.

That's ultimately why this is kind of a bullshit discussion; you're never going to attract the people who don't want to do any of that stuff to a medium that's defined by doing all that stuff, simply by tweaking the combat system.

EDIT:

And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 02:29:33 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

You've never played League of Legends have you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
I've played DOTA2. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that stuff (I don't consider leveling up the hero you're using in a match 'leveling up a character' in the MMO sense, if that's one of the things you mean. Nor is 'having a plan for what to do in this match' the same thing as long term planning or goals in the sense I mean them.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 02:47:23 PM
In LOL, there is plenty of long-term planning to deal with from setting up the correct rune pages for different roles as well as changing masteries for the same reason. It's not a far piece from tacking on a sandboxy world outside of the matches to being just a typical MMORPG - like Pokemon the MMORPG. MMOG raids/PVP/battlegrounds are roughly equivalent to LOL matches - there just happens to be more stuff tacked on before you get to that end game material in typical MMOG's (the grind) than in LOL.

No it's not the same, but don't think for a second there isn't an equivalent amount of meta-game in a game like LOL or CoD as there is in MMORPG's. In fact, I think that kind of special little pony thinking among development teams is part of the reason why MMORPG's are so stuck in the same gameplay mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 04:00:19 PM
One thing I would say has become a problem in character skill based games is that since 2004 they haven't allowed positioning, ability stacking, ability/class synergies to affect anything. Character development gas been offering fewer and fewer options, without making those that are left especially interesting.

Again, not the fault of the character skill approach.

The sorts of character synergies and game changing abilities you see in dota pretty much drained out of post-2004 MMOGs.

But you can look at something like CoX and realise it doesn't have to be that way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 05:48:57 PM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level. 

My only advice to your argument is stop being stupid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 05:55:28 PM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR.

Then I assume you haven't played those two games with any significant time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 14, 2012, 05:58:58 PM
One thing I would say has become a problem in character skill based games is that since 2004 they haven't allowed positioning, ability stacking, ability/class synergies to affect anything.

Don't LOTRO, AoC, DDO and TSW offer aspects of the above?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 06:09:40 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.


 You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 06:12:21 PM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.
Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?

I didn't say it was a failure. It's not hyperbole at all to say that a tab-target game hasn't captured the 10M user audience of WoW.

Financially, however, GW2 is a different beast. It's based entirely on box sales, which makes it roughly in the same market as any other game release. It's also published by a Korean company that handles a slightly different market contingent for its games. GW2 made about $42M in sales for NC Soft per their recent financial release in Nov 7th. Only 16% of their overall income for that quarter was from the US.

All that being said, revenues were still down for the company, and income was down compared to the prior year even with the GW2 release. The stock has taken a hit as a result. Was it a failure? No. Was it the success that NC Soft wanted? No.

And of course this is all because gw2 has tab targetting. sheesh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 14, 2012, 06:17:22 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
WTF Does this mean. Guild wars 2 has fucking tab targetting ffs. You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat. Sheesh.
GW2 combat is twitchier than some of the other tab-targeted MMORPGs out there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 06:22:41 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
WTF Does this mean. Guild wars 2 has fucking tab targetting ffs. You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat. Sheesh.
GW2 combat is twitchier than some of the other tab-targeted MMORPGs out there.


Hence why I suggest adopting a new term for what they hate. Thank god they dropped Diku combat. Now we just have to cure them of reaching for whatever is handy.
As someone else mentioned this is reminding me horribly of the arguments against turn based games.





Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 14, 2012, 08:43:15 PM
In the above linked video, environment means jack and shit. The player presses on button and walks past an entire room of waiting to die Mobs. Trying to compare than with the player choice of using sneaking and stealth, and the hugely more difficult act of preforming to accomplish the goal in a system of combat and environment requires more self awareness, situational awareness and environmental awareness is a huge stretch.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/SkyrimSneakSkill.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 08:54:19 PM
And of course this is all because gw2 has tab targetting. sheesh.

You didn't really make any argument to suggest otherwise. Enlighten us as to why you believe the game didn't meet expectations?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 14, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
Btw, GW2 isn't purely a box sale - it has a fairly elaborate cash shop that's bringing in large amounts of $ on its own (and will continue to do so), I'm pretty sure. GW1's cash shop offered much less, and it still made crazy amounts of money 5+ years after the game's original release.

Also,
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR.

Then I assume you haven't played those two games with any significant time.
See my example above. My stealth archer used precisely one tactic from start until endgame, and all mobs were stupid enough to fall for it. Compared to that, mobs in WOW are tactical geniuses since they have the sense to evade bug.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 10:00:56 PM
Let's not forget mobs who set off the traps in their own dungeon where they've been living for hundreds of years.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 15, 2012, 03:49:40 AM
They are just so excited to see someone new!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 15, 2012, 04:05:44 AM
And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.

That's true in my case.  I love Elder Scrolls games, but never have found the combat to be particularly engaging.  I mean Skyrim was swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep til mob was dead.  Pretty easy.  Ranged classes were even easier.  Interested to see what ESO brings to the table.  The people who have previewed it claim that the combat is very engaging and that mobs have good AI - using synergies with other mobs, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 15, 2012, 05:01:54 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 15, 2012, 05:22:16 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.
FWIW I've come close to failing a dragon event once (only had 2 people on shatterer, which means that his periodic regen crystals did more healing than we could do damage, and we got nearly overwhelmed with summoned adds... eventually 2 more people joined in and we downed him, but it definitely wasn't trivial or easy). Also, the 3 dragon fights in GW2 are not really representative of anything except for 'put big enemy against unorganized zerg' like Wintergrasp/Tol Barad bosses in WOW, invasion bosses in Rift, etc. Come to think of it, I'd say the Claw of Jormag fight is better than any of those...

In general, group fights/events in GW2 (and Rift for that matter) get better if your group/zerg is smaller. I had some really memorable fights with 1-2 other people against a champion boss / group event. When you have 20 people it's going to be crap no matter what - the only alternative would be to put in some heavy-handed zerg-busting mechanics, which would be... bad for any number of reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xilren's Twin on November 15, 2012, 06:07:13 AM
And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.

That's true in my case.  I love Elder Scrolls games, but never have found the combat to be particularly engaging.  I mean Skyrim was swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep til mob was dead.  Pretty easy.  Ranged classes were even easier.  Interested to see what ESO brings to the table.  The people who have previewed it claim that the combat is very engaging and that mobs have good AI - using synergies with other mobs, etc.

And Igmar's description is precisely the reason so many of us think TESO will not be good.  Exploring and telling a story is something most MMO's suck at, even though we have seen attempts made in that direction by GW2 and SWOTOR recently.  "Oh look I'm the head of the assassins guild - just like fifty thousand other people!"  GW2 certainly encourages exploration better then most, but IMHO part of the fun  of exploring the vast world is doing it on your own and finding something interesting as a result.  It's hard to make an MMO generate the sense of "this story/experience is completely mine" they way a single player game can b/c of the mass of people sharing it with you and the ultimate static nature of the gameworld.  The nature of the thing works against you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 06:46:59 AM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?

The game in Q3 financials sold less than Aion in Q1. It's comparable to the income they made on average for Lineage 1 in Q1-2 of 2012.

When you're talking about net effects to financials, the release of the game made them about $9M using their 20% margin rate before Other G/L unrelated to operating.

The point is that they were looking for a bump from sales to beat total earnings in Q3 2011. Even with an extra 45M won coming in from GW2, NC Soft still only tied their YTD revenue totals on the year, and their total operating Margins have plunged from 25% to 12% on the year. They put money into this thing and they only have 56M to show for it in operating profit. Last year they had over $118M on the same amount of total income.

As a result the stock took a hit. Price has gone from 344,000 to 162,500 in the matter of a year. Again, this isn't to say that GW2 didn't sell. It did, but they missed on the same PC gamer market where Diablo 3 sold over 8M copies, and WoW has 10M subs, and the investors answered those missed expectation with a selloff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 15, 2012, 06:52:43 AM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?

The game in Q3 financials sold less than Aion in Q1. It's comparable to the income they made on average for Lineage 1 in Q1-2 of 2012.

When you're talking about net effects to financials, the release of the game made them about $9M using their 20% margin rate before Other G/L unrelated to operating.

The point is that they were looking for a bump from sales to beat total earnings in Q3 2011. Even with an extra 45M won coming in from GW2, NC Soft still only tied their YTD revenue totals on the year, and their total operating Margins have plunged from 25% to 12% on the year. They put money into this thing and they only have 56M to show for it in operating profit. Last year they had over $118M on the same amount of total income.

As a result the stock took a hit. Price has gone from 344,000 to 162,500 in the matter of a year. Again, this isn't to say that GW2 didn't sell. It did, but they missed on the same PC gamer market where Diablo 3 sold over 8M copies, and WoW has 10M subs, and the investors answered those missed expectation with a selloff.
The NCSoft stock has been taking a hit because NCSoft's been screwing the pooch everywhere else. They have at least 2 other games in the pipeline eating up massive amoutns of development $. It's also why they had to close down COH. Expecting one game to save them from the failures and costly development of many other games is a bit much.

(and like I said before, GW2 isn't a pure box sale. Even for GW1, most of the income came from microtrans I think)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 06:57:22 AM
I don't disagree that they are screwing the pooch elsewhere. That's part of why they expected GW2 to ride in on a white horse and save the day.

GW2 has not tapped the same market that it could because of its inherent limitations. Some of them are related to the foreign company, some of them are related to the gameplay, and some of them are related to the problems with distribution/lauch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 15, 2012, 12:15:23 PM
So, you're guessing based on numbers rather than working on an actual statement of "We expected X dollars from GW2 and got Y"?

I'm not saying you might not be right but you sounded very ...factual about it, the first time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 15, 2012, 12:20:29 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.

First, I agree with this. However, if you want pure boredom try a late night Jormag kill when there are very few people on. You're praying for the zerg because his huge f'ing hp don't scale much to crowd size. Also what little strategy seems required (dont stand on the blue patches) still seems to kill a lot of people. I don't think they really programmed a failure condition on dragons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 12:25:06 PM
So, you're guessing based on numbers rather than working on an actual statement of "We expected X dollars from GW2 and got Y"?

I'm not saying you might not be right but you sounded very ...factual about it, the first time.

Well guessing is a bit harsh. I'm basing it on the expectation of the investor in regards to the financial performance of the company. A stock doesn't drop by half in a year because things are getting better, and it certainly doesn't fall off after an earnings release (with GW2 income in it) by 25% in less than a week. Although I'm sure I could pull an actual quote if A - they didn't want to charge me for a translated transcript of the call, or B - I knew Korean.

Per a statement in Massively - "NCsoft said that it is banking on Guild Wars 2 to produce a profitable third quarter." This was coming off a loss in Q2. While it did produce a positive Q3, it wasn't anywhere near as profitable as 2011 in terms of operating profit. I'd love to get more information, but the language barrier gets in the way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 15, 2012, 03:14:55 PM
JFC, this is going to be another 200+ page thread by launch, isn't it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
JFC, this is going to be another 200+ page thread by launch, isn't it?
(http://i.imgur.com/0HU7k.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 15, 2012, 05:11:50 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

Huh what?

MMOs like WoW are typically mechanically very shitty - they need the "stickyness" stuff like items and XP because without those the base game is fucking garbage.

LoL doesn't need traditional "stickyness" shit and "RPG elements" because the game itself is fundamentally fun to play.

Someone mentioned Borderlands  - good example of a game that NEEDS "RPG elements." Without leveling and a million different items the game would be garbage. Backpedal and shoot Skags for 40 hours straight - what a game! If you look at the vast majority of games that have "RPG elements" in them the RPG elements very obviously serve to paper over a game that would otherwise be way too thin. And MMOs are the extreme version of this - if you remove leveling and different items and such from MMOs and look at the base gameplay they are universally awful.

WoW could very easily make arena battle as accessible as LoL battle. (I'm not really up to date on WoW, so maybe it's already accessible for all I know) But if you tried to make WoW arena battles competitive in the sense where time spent in game didn't make a huge difference people would quickly realize that the base mechanics for fun skillful small group combat just aren't there.

I have been beating this drum for literally like 8 or so years now...the fundamental issues with MMOs is that the underlying mechanics just don't make for fun games. Now some MMOs are fun, because of the social interaction and the stuff layered on top and such, but the base mechanics of MMOs are just not enjoyable on their own. Most MMOs are mostly combat-based where the combat itself is terrible.

Quote
And all that stuff you *don't* have to do, is what MMO fans like about MMOs. It gives them a sense of 'this is my character' that all those other games utterly lack.

LoL is a competitive game, so allowing you to level up a character in a significant way over time is hard to do right. That said people do like to customize their characters with skins, characters do level up during the course of a game, you put points into skills, people on forums figure out which builds and items are best. A lot of it is like MMO leveling but on an extremely compressed time scale.

And I think if someone could figure out a way to do persistent character leveling in a way that didn't break balance people would love it.

Comparing LoL to WoW is a bit apples and oranges, but I think it's very fair to say that MMO base gameplay is pretty poor, and it's very hard for me to understand how making it better would be a bad thing. Forget even "tab targeting" vs twitch or whatever, even if you look turn based strategy and slower-paced management games MMO combat is still typically pretty bad as it's generally simple, repetitive and takes no real strategy of any kind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 15, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
Depends which mmog you play.

Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't. And the model could be made as complex as you want.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 15, 2012, 07:57:25 PM
Depends which mmog you play.

Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't. And the model could be made as complex as you want.

I suppose.  Maybe it is just current technological limitations, but it seems to me that most MMOs who have tried actiony content end up having to sack it for performance reasons, where it just feels a bit too sluggish to actually feel twitchy, so it is better to default back to the "turn based" combat of CRPGs which although boring, actually feels less sluggish (even when it is slower paced) because things respond consistently as expected.

I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 15, 2012, 08:17:52 PM
It also looked like NCsoft's Blade & Soul launch cannibalised their Lineage player base rather than brought in new players.

In some ways I think the market over-adjusted on NCsoft - their figures weren't that bad. However, they probably were pumped up by a lot of investors thinking that GW2 was going to raise the share price who all started dumping stock when it didn't. Which then became a flood.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 15, 2012, 08:30:55 PM
Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't.
This really isn't an accurate criticism anymore.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't know as it ever has.  Most people just didn't see much high level play in early WoW unless they were in GM/HWL gear with maxed out engineering; or raiding BWL, AQ, and Naxx.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 08:35:47 PM
It also looked like NCsoft's Blade & Soul launch cannibalised their Lineage player base rather than brought in new players.

In some ways I think the market over-adjusted on NCsoft - their figures weren't that bad. However, they probably were pumped up by a lot of investors thinking that GW2 was going to raise the share price who all started dumping stock when it didn't. Which then became a flood.

That's pretty much my thought. While 2M in unit sales was good, it's not exactly mind-blowing when you take into account recent sales figures for games. It was more about missed expectations than GW2 not being a good game, but the game simply didn't tap a big enough market for those investors.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 16, 2012, 12:56:49 AM


I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.

Sort of like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tjK5OI2oAQ

When he says combat mode he means mod.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 16, 2012, 02:11:15 AM
Neat.

I went and checked to see if you could do the same for WoW, unfortunately not easily.  The game doesn't register the @mouseover script condition when you are using mouselook, so you'd have to write some sort of external script that untoggles mouselook, selects what is under the cursor, and then toggles mouselook back on.  Then you'd get banned by Warden for being a bot. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 16, 2012, 03:25:44 AM
"Tab targeting" or hotbar-based combat is not really a problem in itself, it just goes hand in hand with a certain type of design. Taking a hotkey / tab targeting game and making it so that pressing left mouse is the same as pressing 1 doesn't fundamentally change anything.

THe problem is that in MMOs tab targeting / hotbars almost always go along with idiotic punching-bag enemies, repetitive optimal combos that work on almost everyone, etc.

In many ways Xenoblade combat is MMO combat, you have what is basically a hotbar with abilities on timers. But in Xenoblade you manage 3 characters, there are a lot of position-dependent abilities, you need different skill setups to deal with different types of enemies, there is some on-the-fly adjustment needed with reviving guys and the premonition stuff, etc. Of course there are a lot of enemies that you can just run up to and pound on and beat, but there are a lot of enemies that are not major bosses that still take some finesse to take down without being "learn which spot not to stand in" gimmick battles.

Making combat more actiony / twitch may well be a good direction to go in, but my point is more that even staying in the realm of cooldowns / hot bars / tabbing MMO combat could still be much more interesting than it typically is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 16, 2012, 06:04:04 AM
Yup.  I said that two pages ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 16, 2012, 06:08:58 AM
And it wasn't really true then either. At least not for GW, CoX, Daoc or a bunch other games that aren't wow.

Some people even argue it isn't true for wow.

I do agree that more recent games have been trending down toward the overly simplistic though. Not everyone agrees.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 16, 2012, 06:41:04 AM
And it wasn't really true then either. At least not for GW, CoX, Daoc or a bunch other games that aren't wow.

Some people even argue it isn't true for wow.

I do agree that more recent games have been trending down toward the overly simplistic though. Not everyone agrees.

Of course it's true, or you're not paying attention.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 16, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Hey Draegan, when's the last time you played WoW?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 17, 2012, 06:12:45 PM

MMO players expect continued advancement of one character for hundreds of hours. So yeah, game play whether borderlands FPS, a twitch MMO like Tera or a more traditional tactical focus MMO is going to get elongated and repetitive. And they'll still weep when the road runs out. You want every battle to be a dynamic and unique set-piece that's fine but those games tend to have durations in the 10's of hours and are better suited to single-player.

PvP players are somewhat different. They're happy to play the same battle for years while they refine their execution and build up their character over-time. But this game-play gets very little from a persistent world MMO, the optimal persistent component is a game lobby and it doesn't need to be game-like. Indeed it tends to be damaged by the power creep and mechanics of a developing persistent world game. Which is why GW2 let's these people skip the MMO bit of the game.

Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

Not that any of this is likely to be relevant to elder scrolls online.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 17, 2012, 07:16:45 PM
Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

I agree that it's kind of pointless to design for everybody at this stage, since everybody already has a niche that's covered pretty well by an existing title.  That said, I do think PvP is the only way out for the genre, ultimately, since most PvE content tends to be done better, cheaper, and faster in a single player context.

Most PvE MMOs don't really have to be massively multiplayer, mechanically, I could play about 90% of World of Warcraft or it's myriad followers either single player or with a fairly small group (forty or less for just about everything non PvP).  I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more "Minecraft"-style server setups in RPGs, where persistent worlds are set up and run by players, on dedicated servers with relatively low player counts.  Just about the only thing you NEED hundreds of people for is a big competitive market (which is peripheral to the orc killing in most MMOs), or a massive PvP war (which doesn't happen because nobody's figured out a way to do it without scaring the casuals).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 18, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

I agree that it's kind of pointless to design for everybody at this stage, since everybody already has a niche that's covered pretty well by an existing title.  That said, I do think PvP is the only way out for the genre, ultimately, since most PvE content tends to be done better, cheaper, and faster in a single player context.

Probably the easiest but not the only way. And certainly not the way that leads to the biggest money hat.

I've still not seen any mmog team put any real effort into a sustainable episodic content delivery process.

Yes, it is hard, and no, it hasn't been done well yet. But even TV soap operas demonstrate every day how it is perfectly possible to build content in a cheap and continuous stream, so long as your production team is properly organised.

Changes of strategy every three weeks and a the transparent lack of planning for post launch we've seen in every major mmog ever, clearly don't help.


And cooperative multiplayer is a bigger market than pvp, every single time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 18, 2012, 04:43:28 PM


I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.

Sort of like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tjK5OI2oAQ

When he says combat mode he means mod.


Looks decent.  Reminds me of Champions Online, which had (has I suppose) a control scheme similar to that which you could turn on.  It was pretty fun for some builds, but barely usable for others.   I guess at the end of the day I'm looking for an MMORPG which dispenses with most of the gameplay conventions of CRPGs.  I guess something like Darkfall combat, but more polished so as not to feel clunky.  In fact, now that I think about it, Darkfall combat is probably pretty close ot what I'm looking for, just as a model for the sake of discussion. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 18, 2012, 07:50:12 PM
I've still not seen any mmog team put any real effort into a sustainable episodic content delivery process.

Sure, I'm just not 100% on the reason why you'd develop an MMO specifically around episodic content like that.  It seems like a better fit for something like a Neverwinter Nights or a Dragon Age, a smaller scale game that doesn't have to worry about all the problems that you get as an MMO, everything from issues with player agency and balancing to the nightmare technical problems and social issues.

I just get the feeling that, rather than looking at the MMO genre as a whole and saying "we have hundreds of players interacting here, how can we make a fun and unique game out of that" or looking at their epic story based RPG and saying "what kind of format would be the best way to develop and sell this game", the typical thought process behind the design pitch begins and ends with the idea of getting $15.00 per player per month, and trying to justify that expense to the player, which seems like a backwards way to design anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 18, 2012, 10:15:16 PM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

For example, on my staff elementalist the only real use of tab targetting is to see if something's out of range / what debuffs etc. it has. Basically all of my skills are ground targeted and/or 'skill shots'...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 18, 2012, 10:50:52 PM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

Not I, admittedly.  I plan on picking it up eventually, but haven't gotten around to it yet (combination of money and *effort*).  Currently trying to get TERA to work, so maybe once that snags I'll get around to it.  I like a lot of the things I've heard about it, I just haven't been able to convince myself to drop $50 on it yet, for some reason.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 01:39:08 AM
Yeah, GW2 is way twitchier than most of the stuff out there, especially cause it's one of the few MMORPGs where you can shoot everything regardless of the target and, most importantly, you can completely waste a cooldown whenever you cast/shoot on a target that is (or just went) out of range. Tab-targeting, while present if you want to use it, is really close to non existence at this point.

I've been re-re-re-trying Tera these days, but it's the first time I'm doing it since GW2 came out. Most significant difference is that in GW2 you can't miss with ranged single target attacks (if you have nothing tab targeted your arrow/spell goes for the first available target), unless they are out of maximum range, while in Tera you literally have a crosshair and have to keep your enemy in it the whole time, with every single shot.

GW2 is a big step forward from the usual MMORPG combat if you ask me, I can't even think of going back to a game where I can only use a skill if I have a target selected or if they are in range. That has been my biggest gripe since the 90s, the disconnect between what I wanted to do (draw a sword and swing it) and the impossibility to do so regardless of target.

But Tera, while still a bit slower than your generic console action-RPG (attacks tend to root you in place for a few instants) is definitely twitchier and presents a much more visceral kind of combat.

To put it simple, you can say what you want but the traditional MMORPG-hotbar combat has always been just a glorified whack-a-mole where you use your mouse clicks to whack the moles (hotbar skills) as soon as they pop up (cooldowns) according to a pre-determined (most efficient rotation) and never changing pattern. GW doesn't break this mold, it just starts to stretch it a bit, like Age of Conan did.

In Tera, your left mouse button swings your weapon (for the record, I tried to remap this into GW2, you can't). There are still some moles to whack (a hotbar with some cooldowns) but the focus is on aiming (the crosshair is present for melee attacks too, and mouselook is on by default) at your enemy, and actively avoiding their attacks by moving around and away from their attack animations (right mouse button doesn't fiddle with the camera, it's an active dodge roll instead). Health regen between fights is very slow, so you are not gonna rely on your Defense Rating to prevent annoying downtime, you have to rely on dodging blows and avoid getting hit, like in Golden Axe, Final Fight or Double Dragon if you know what I mean.

I am sure there's a big market for both kinds of MMORPG combat. It's just that the action kind has been underrepresented so far due to technical limitations, but it's hard not to think that's going to change and make a huge impact in the genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 19, 2012, 02:12:37 AM
Just as a note about GW2 projectiles, you CAN miss if the target moves behind LOS after you launched the missile ('obstructed') and in many cases you can side-step projectiles too without needing to move out of range or LOS by changing your movement direction/speed between the time of firing and impact (slow-moving projectiles like the staff fireball are a good way to test this, but some people reported being able to pseudo-dodge the rapid-fire volley used by the karka this way too). It is also possible to body-block projectiles; I do it all the time on my elementalist - pop my projectile reflect skill and stand in front of an ally getting nuked. You also don't automatically target a nearby mob with target skills if the 'auto-target' function is turned off in options.

GW1 was also pretty twitchy projectile attack-wise even back in 2005 - see here (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Projectile) for general projectile mechanics and here (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow) for different types of bows and how arcing / weapon speed / positional bonus damage / etc works with them. FWIW, this made me and my 400ms latency hate playing a ranger.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 04:42:18 AM
I know we've covered this but I have never played the MMOG you speak of where players simply run their rotation.

My defiler in eq 2 had 49 buttons and only 2 of them were anything remotely like a rotation.

There are games and classes with a greater or lesser amount of variety, and the genre could certainly use more, especially for solo or lower level play; but what you are saying simply isn't my experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 05:40:27 AM
And I never played the MMORPG without rotations.

You have to admit though that I am not the one who invented the term rotation, right? Are you really gonna argue that when you are max level (in pretty much any MMORPG) you are honestly using different skills based on the mob, outside of just acknowleding that they are ranged or not, one or more (which means you are simply gonna pick a different rotation)?

Fine, I guess, but that's not my experience either.

Also, trivia time, as far as I know the "whack a mole" expression MMO-wise was coined specifically around EQ2 about 8 years ago. Personally, I played the hell out of that game in 2005, and I remember that unless you had unexpected mobs "adding" to an encounter, you definitely had to whack-a-mole your most efficient rotations for literally hours and hours. Maybe it was a defiler thing. It might be a bit different for healing classes, as the need for a heal or a purge can interpolate in your rotations, but I have a hard time believing you were dynamically playing your 49 skills.

As a last note, I'd say EQ2 was a much more layered and complicated (and hard) PvE MMORPG than the ones we have now. For the most parts, I'd say hotbars or not they have been massively dumbed down, and rotations and macros are now considered features, shrines to the god of Repetition.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 05:55:52 AM
I'd definitely agree complexity has declined since 2004 .

We don't even have enchanters any more. People have forgotten what the 'trinity' even means.

But even in wowalike swtor in pugs at max level people still have to mark certain mobs for cc, use strategies like knock backs, assess which mobs are strong against which abilities, manage interrupts, as well as understand boss strategies beyond "don't stand in fire".

 I completely agree there should be more of this. And synergies between classes, more environmental features, more options in character build to influence play style.

But no one is going to tell me torchlight, Diablo, elder scrolls, or other action RPGs have less mindless button mashing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 06:06:48 AM
I agree that boss fights are a different story. Sadly, they are like what, 5% of the whole experience for even the most dedicated players?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2012, 07:56:39 AM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

For example, on my staff elementalist the only real use of tab targetting is to see if something's out of range / what debuffs etc. it has. Basically all of my skills are ground targeted and/or 'skill shots'...

I have guild wars 2.  The combat is more fun than most MMORPG combat for sure.  Dodging is nice.  I don't particularly like the pacing of the combat on a large scale, but it isn't terrible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 19, 2012, 11:34:37 AM
Hey Draegan, when's the last time you played WoW?

Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though? 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
I agree that boss fights are a different story. Sadly, they are like what, 5% of the whole experience for even the most dedicated players?

That is fair. If the motion before the house is 'MMOG style hotbar combat post 2004 has been over simplified and does not adequately explore the potential of the genre' then I'm with you.

But I see this as an argument for better hot bars, not for reverting to Diablo style button mashing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 19, 2012, 01:39:00 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 19, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
Waite, Diablo has good combat now?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 19, 2012, 02:15:25 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.

It does seem extraordinary odd to me that people think the number of buttons are so important for tactical complexity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 19, 2012, 02:16:46 PM
I just want to hit things in the face. I don't want to politely tap them in place until they fall over.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 19, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.

Did I fall in to the sarchasm here, or do I seriously need to explain why "more buttons = tactical depth" is an incredibly poor argument to make?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2012, 03:10:33 PM
When I think of engaging combat in games, I think of Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Tribes.   I'd go as far as to say I've never played an RPG with really engaging combat.  When I've played RPGs (MMO or not) it has basically never been because I just couldn't get enough of the combat.  I like the pausable pseudo turn based stuff in the early Bioware titles, but then you are controlling an entire party - something that never happens in an MMO.  It is because I like the game setting, or Role Playing, and so forth.  But those are the very things which have become less and less represented in the genre, which I think accounts for my decline in caring about CRPGs in general.  Seeing as they seem to be largely moving away from those things anyway, they are going to have to change the combat to something I actually like to get me to play them.

All of the games I mentioned have a few things in common:

1) High Speed - by this I mean literally high speed.  Things happen quickly, and often.  MMORPGs tend to have a relatively slow pace.

2) Lots of decision making - Quick, precise, good decision making matters in all of those games.  The games are dynamic and contingent enough that you have to have a strong base skill set which allows you to make good decisions which arise in the moment, rather than knowing the ideal thing to do beforehand. (Starcraft 2 has a concept of builds, which are probably an exception here, but builds are in no way at the expensive of a good understanding of the game which allows you to make good decisions in the context of a particular game).

3) Low margin for error - make a mistake, and you are hosed, and probably hosed immediately.  I would include in this the ability to make mistakes.  It is basically impossible to make mistakes in most MMO combat.  The limitation for most MMO combat is knowledge, but after you've "figured it out" most MMO combat becomes a bore to me.

4) Movement - This matters a lot in games where combat is engaging to me, Rocket Jumping in Quake, Blink Micro in Starcraft, strafe jumping in Counter Strike.  GW2 did ok with this with the dodge mechanic, which was my favorite part of the combat by a wide margin.


None of this has to do with hotkeys, or crosshairs, or binding things to the mouse.  It is generally less about what my hands are doing and more about what my brain is doing.  Number of key presses has nothing to do with it frankly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 19, 2012, 07:15:17 PM
How hosed are you, though?  Lost xp hosed?  Need to corpse-run hosed?  Need to break into another plane naked to get your corpse back hosed?

I think the limitation for MMO combat is cat-herding; you can definitely have it "figured out", but try to get your group or raid to actually do what they know they're supposed to do, it's not easy.  And knowledge is definitely not the limitation.

BTW, you started with talking about (solo) RPG's vs. your games, but your four points are about MMO's, where all the organizing and cooperating and other people do affect the combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 19, 2012, 09:12:46 PM

I think an MMO should play like a FPS.

... logs into a laggy GW2 event with high latency to do a precision jumping puzzle.

Yeah, maybe not.

A game focused on playing with other people gains a lot from a slower and more tactical combat system where you have time to integrate your actions with the actions of others, communicate with them as you go and deal with latency. EQ was a superior social environment at least partly because the action was slower and that encouraged communication. Whereas twitchy console-inspired games like DCUO rapidly prove to be shallow.

Now a large scale shooter, a battlefield or planetside, I can see. But the general response in practice is it's too hard to get to the action, it's all about the zerg and getting rolled and it's not as tight as a set teams, set time FPS like, "Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Tribes".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 20, 2012, 12:40:24 AM
An advantage of actiony combat is that it can feel satisfying even without much depth. It's fun to whack things in real time, knock dudes up into the air, headshot people, etc.

Measured combat is really only fun when the combat has some difficulty or strategy.

I think FFXI is a good example of doing this right and wrong. When FFXI came out the best way to get XP was to group up and fight against IT++ enemies - very hard enemies. ("Impossibly tough") These enemies could actually kill you, and if you got an add or something you had to play pretty well to live. And these were normal enemies, not bosses. It wasn't rocket science but people can and would die to them. Even if you were fighting weaker enemies they often spawned around IT++ enemies that could come out of nowhere and shiv you. (Goblins!)

Years later the best way to gain XP was to burn through VT enemies that spawned near other VT enemies. It's basically impossible for a group to die to VT enemies even with an add - or even for a single member to die. Because enemies die so fast using mana on them for helpful debuffs is actually counter-productive. People also stopped using skill chains because enemies were so weak it was better to use abilities as soon as they were available instead of doing them in tandem.

So by tweaking the difficulty (actually just the XP formula) the game completely changed in terms of strategy - going from at least some to essentially none.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 20, 2012, 12:45:01 AM

I think an MMO should play like a FPS.

... logs into a laggy GW2 event with high latency to do a precision jumping puzzle.

That's not my experience with GW2 at all. I am sure there can be latency episodes, but I'd say the tecnology has been nailed by now. Planetside 2 is another good example (Also Tera, to stay closer).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 20, 2012, 01:56:43 AM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


The difference is that on WAR an explicitly stated aim was to make rvr not fun like it was in doac.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 20, 2012, 02:35:56 AM
That's not my experience with GW2 at all. I am sure there can be latency episodes, but I'd say the tecnology has been nailed by now. Planetside 2 is another good example (Also Tera, to stay closer).

Tera is only on sale in two regions globally for good reason. And even within those I doubt acceptable action game latency ping ( < 100) is universal.

An advantage of actiony combat is that it can feel satisfying even without much depth. It's fun to whack things in real time, knock dudes up into the air, headshot people, etc.

Not really, it's just as meaningless, though I do notice as long as console players can mash an action button and have a variety of animations fire they're happy. That was the logic behind champions online (mash auto attack, animation sequences) but it wasn't actually interesting in an MMO context. Partly because of latency and partly because the other half of most of these action games is having low hit point, highly variable behaviour, human opposition.

The TF2 bot mode bored me senseless very quickly.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2012, 06:42:52 AM
How hosed are you, though?  Lost xp hosed?  Need to corpse-run hosed?  Need to break into another plane naked to get your corpse back hosed?

I'm mainly talking dead. In most MMO combat (aside from raids or really tough instances) you can make huge mistakes and be fine.  This encourages me to not actually give a crap and do something like watch TV while playing, I just don't have to pay close attention.  This is pretty much the opposite of "engaging" combat.

Quote
I think the limitation for MMO combat is cat-herding; you can definitely have it "figured out", but try to get your group or raid to actually do what they know they're supposed to do, it's not easy.  And knowledge is definitely not the limitation.
For raiding, sure, but raids make this important by ramping up the difficulty.  And this is actually a good thing - solo or group.  It addresses the first point - you have to actually pay attention.

Quote
BTW, you started with talking about (solo) RPG's vs. your games, but your four points are about MMO's, where all the organizing and cooperating and other people do affect the combat.

I think it is perfectly fair lumping all RPGs in together more or less, the combat is generally the weakest point of all of them.



A game focused on playing with other people gains a lot from a slower and more tactical combat system where you have time to integrate your actions with the actions of others, communicate with them as you go and deal with latency. EQ was a superior social environment at least partly because the action was slower and that encouraged communication.


Counter Strike and Team Fortress have engaging combat and require team work  (at high levels of play).  Speed matters more when playing with strangers, but if you are playing with a group of people you know, teamplay isn't restricted by game speed.  Even team games of Starcraft 2 are fast paced and require lots of team work.  I don't see that this is a legitimate issue with fast paced combat.


Partly because of latency and partly because the other half of most of these action games is having low hit point, highly variable behaviour, human opposition.


This is also a big thing that I should have but failed to say.  A major part of what makes combat engaging is exactly this.  This is one of the reasons I liked Darkfall combat actually, despite how clunky it was.  The AI, while not brilliant, acted a lot more like a player.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 20, 2012, 01:22:08 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

Great argument.  Here's an equally great answer.  "*YOU* shouldn't play them"

See, I don't like Counter Strike or team fortress.  They're too fast for my shitty reaction, early arthritis and 40-year-old-man vision. Ergo they should all change to turn based systems because they suck being so twitchy and fast.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2012, 01:58:30 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

Great argument.  Here's an equally great answer.  "*YOU* shouldn't play them"

See, I don't like Counter Strike or team fortress.  They're too fast for my shitty reaction, early arthritis and 40-year-old-man vision. Ergo they should all change to turn based systems because they suck being so twitchy and fast.

Um, we are arguing what we want to see in MMO combat systems/what is engaging combat to us.  This isn't some objective discussion, not sure why you're all upset about it.  As for your retort, you are exactly right, that is what I'm doing - not playing them. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 20, 2012, 07:24:14 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

I like RPG combat when it's good. To me good RPG combat, if it is turn-based or slow-paced, means there is some sort of meaningful strategy / tactics / management aspect.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on November 21, 2012, 06:32:42 AM
You're all getting awfully vague now...good combat is good, bad combat is bad. Duh.

Personally I'd love an MMO with combat that starts of somewhere from Fallout 3/F:NV. I played them slightly modded (basically more damage all around - kill/die in 2/3 shots, not 10+) and it definitely was on the good side of the play-because/play-despite fence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 21, 2012, 06:59:48 AM
To me, good combat in an MMO is:
  • A limited number of abilities so I don't have to learn to play a piano.  I really love MMOs that make you create a "decK" like COH or GW2.
  • Combat that is built on positioning and dodging.  I like GW2's hybrid system.  If you swing in one direction, you hit no matter your target.  I like TERAs system where you have to aim.  You don't need all of these but I enjoy combat where positioning and movement matter.

That's really it.  You can add all different layers of raid movement, combo systems with other players like LOTRO or FFXI, and it really doesn't matter to me to make it enjoyable.  The actual mechanics of using my keyboard and mouse and how they impact gameplay is what matters to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 21, 2012, 07:30:33 AM
Have they announced which nerd-celebrity they are going to kill off in the tutorial yet?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 07:57:52 AM
Yeah, I think GW2 and The Secret World are a natural evolution of hotbar MMO combat in a much more dynamic direction, where positioning and dodging are becoming more meaningful, and spamming or whacking buttons is counter-poductive. This without becoming too dependant on reflexes and eye-hand precision.

They both only have 9 buttons max to press.
They both have active dodge.
They both have soft-targeting and can shoot/cast most of the stuff without a target, possibly wasting cooldowns.

Again, I do not think one kind of combat is superior to the other, although I obviously have my preference. I am just glad MMORPG developers are starting to make games with a more action-based combat after more than ten static years of cooldown-based monopoly (Exception: Age of Conan, 2008).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 21, 2012, 09:58:13 AM
Asheron's Call, 1999 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 10:38:57 AM
I've been waiting for someone to mention AC for 20 pages now. What's really interesting here is to analyze why they scrapped positioning and dodging from MMORPG combat for ten years after that. The answer being: it didn't make EQ money, so they gathered from that that the RPG crowd wasn't caring about moving around as much as they cared about achieving. WoW proved (and sealed) the point.

Newer generations? I am pretty sure they will want their achievements to come from lots more action _in comparison_. Turn based games will never die, but I really think that slow paced hotbar based MMO combat is going to evolve into something faster and more dynamic across the board. Something the RPG audience was simply not ready for (and kind of hating) in 1999.

We had /face back then, dammit. Do any of you think something like that would be possible in a MMORPG coming out now? I know there's some out there (and here) that would still love to have the /face command, but you aren't gonna get it. And that's the slow but steady evolution I'm talking about.

My point being, there's a big audience for both kinds of combat in MMOPGs now. But that wasn't equally true ten years ago cause genres and their mechanics (and their players) were much more defined and separated.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 21, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 04:38:55 PM
I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

You can't be serious. I mean it, you can't be serious.

What I (and probably Draegan) described is the antithesis of /face. And yes I know it was in DAOC, and DAOC combat was nothing like what (they claim) they want to do in ESO. You really want this to be DAOC 2, but even if it were (and it's not) it wouldn't be the DAOC 2 you would make.

Seriously. How many people out there in the world in 2012 you think want a /face command for a PvP game (or even PvE)?
The best you can hope for is a "lock target" button if the thing turns very action-y, but that would make your DAOC 2 a console game. And something tells me that's not what you are dreaming about.

In fact, I think your dream is really impairing your objectivity here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 21, 2012, 04:46:54 PM
I don't want /face, I want my attacks to hit regardless of facing. Because "jousting" is the most lame, low ping abusing, form of PvP ever invented.

Or in other words there's a gameplay reason why daoc had /face.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 21, 2012, 05:48:32 PM
I don't want /face, I want my attacks to hit regardless of facing. Because "jousting" is the most lame, low ping abusing, form of PvP ever invented.

Or in other words there's a gameplay reason why daoc had /face.

This.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 22, 2012, 12:47:52 PM

I've been re-re-re-trying Tera these days, but it's the first time I'm doing it since GW2 came out. Most significant difference is that in GW2 you can't miss with ranged single target attacks (if you have nothing tab targeted your arrow/spell goes for the first available target), unless they are out of maximum range, while in Tera you literally have a crosshair and have to keep your enemy in it the whole time, with every single shot.



That's because you have the EZ-Mode hit closest target option on in gameplay options.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 22, 2012, 12:54:47 PM
I just want an MMO with mount and blade combat, why is that so hard!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 22, 2012, 01:34:40 PM
Because even Mount & Blade has a hard time doing Mount & Blade combat online.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on November 22, 2012, 08:56:34 PM
All one needs is some negative ping code. It will solve all these problems, for sure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on November 23, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...
/face and /stick were for people who got run off the Zeks in EQ for being terrible players.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 23, 2012, 11:15:49 AM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...
/face and /stick were for people who got run off the Zeks in EQ for being terrible players.

Now now, lets not start the epeen flexing.  Don't make me reinstall that game and /duel challenge you...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 23, 2012, 11:51:07 AM
Simply put, /face was for c-roleplayers, who at the time weren't that versed in real time combat after years of muds and turn-based things, and were not going to like an online RPG that put such a strong focus on reflexes and eye-hand coordination. Also, a crutch for the network limitations of year 2000.

I can't stress enough that there's room for any kind of playstyle. Hell, look at turn based and all the love it still gets (I love it myself). But do you really think Elder Scrolls Online is gonna have /face? Really? Wanna make a bet?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 23, 2012, 03:16:40 PM
Kageru already explained the real issue behind face.

You can all stop strawmaning now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 24, 2012, 11:19:31 AM
Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though?

Just wondering what your point of reference was.  "Games are trending more simplistic in basic fight design" sounds very insane unless you've been living in a cave for the last five years and not seen random world mobs in many games get more than one ability to use on the player.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 25, 2012, 06:33:44 PM
More than one ability? Amazing!

Kind of like...basically every single enemy in FFXI, a game from 2004 or so?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 26, 2012, 12:57:19 AM
An outlier does not a pattern make.  I forget, weren't there some other games that launched in 2004?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 26, 2012, 01:23:09 AM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2012, 07:42:34 AM
Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though?

Just wondering what your point of reference was.  "Games are trending more simplistic in basic fight design" sounds very insane unless you've been living in a cave for the last five years and not seen random world mobs in many games get more than one ability to use on the player.

I'm not talking about comparing an NPC that has only a single target attacks and a heal vs. an NPC that has a ST attack, a heal, a frontal AOE and a summong spell.  I was talking about taking that and then adding movement and dodging into the equations.  That only really comes into play if you have a combat system that supports positioning and dodging though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 26, 2012, 04:11:51 PM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 26, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
I honestly think a huge part of it is that with the earlier MMOs it was all pretty new and the pure novelty value of having this huge world to explore, monsters to find and fight, dungeons to clear, et, etc, the mechanics just didn't matter as much to us.  The "experience" of playing the game was great because of what it was.  Nowadays, a lot of us are "over" that feeling and the big fantasy themed game world just isn't enough on its own.  We want more engaging gameplay - however that is defined on the individual level.  We can argue all day over which combat system we remember the most fondly, but I have a feeling that those memories are shaded by the context of being an early-MMO player.  What matters is what will engage us now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 26, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.

Pretty sure their actual point was that combat mechanics and PC abilities were more complex, and carried a higher player skill cap as a consequence.

I'd say boss abilities were roughly similar though not telegraphed as clearly as they are now. Took about a year for people to work out the mechanics on a daoc dragon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 04:56:55 PM
Combat mechanics and PC abilities weren't more complex, IMO, unless we're comparing them to GW2/TSW. At best they were more obscured because of shitty and/or false documentation, which made it harder to be a good player, perhaps, but not in any kind of way that should ever be emulated again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2012, 06:38:55 PM
Yeah, mechanics on EQ bosses were nothing.  DAOC dragons weren't any more advanced, we just didn't have the tools or the exact mechanics were obscured from us in the name of lord knows what.   The fights took trial and error and tons of wipes because nobody knew what they were doing.  You'd start to figure things out then *WHAM* new and unexpected phase you had to work through with new mechanics.

http://www.classesofcamelot.com/misc/ClassGuides/mid_dragon.asp
That is not a tough fight once it's all spelled out for you.  There's 2 abilities and a team swap, you get harder fights in today's one-group dungeons in any other DIKU.

People forget the hue and cry over Blizzard giving us actual numbers now that it's 8 years later.  The hardcore raid crowd said it would be the death of all things and make games too easy.   Instead it's meant they have to actually design shit instead of throwing things up and saying, "Figure it out, ha ha."



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.

I don't remember claiming encounter design was getting dumber, rather that it started dumb and stayed dumb. But that said it does feel to me that MMOs today are generally easier. (Even if the "difficulty" in older games was not really strategy and more stuff like not having a map, needing to level a lot, etc)

Quote from: Merusk
Yeah, mechanics on EQ bosses were nothing.  DAOC dragons weren't any more advanced, we just didn't have the tools or the exact mechanics were obscured from us in the name of lord knows what.   The fights took trial and error and tons of wipes because nobody knew what they were doing.  You'd start to figure things out then *WHAM* new and unexpected phase you had to work through with new mechanics.
...
People forget the hue and cry over Blizzard giving us actual numbers now that it's 8 years later.  The hardcore raid crowd said it would be the death of all things and make games too easy.   Instead it's meant they have to actually design shit instead of throwing things up and saying, "Figure it out, ha ha."

I don't understand how having to figure stuff out is a bad thing, especially in games that are ostensibly about exploration, discovery and fantasy. Isn't learning how systems work rewarding? Would Megaman be better if the game told you what order to do the bosses in and what weapons to use on them?

Instead of having a threat meter can't you just learn what generates threat? It seems to me that the WoW attitude is basically that the game should play itself - tell you how much threat everyone has, tell you which spells to cast, tell you exactly where to go for each quest. What does "playing" WoW actually consist of? A slightly more elaborate Simon Says?

I'm not arguing that fundamental mechanics should be inscrutable and that things like minimaps shouldn't exist, but there is a point at which you are giving the player information they could intuit or learn if their brain hadn't atrophied. The idea that learning through "trial and error" - aka experimentation - is a bad thing is just unfathomable to me.

In a game where you have to learn through experimentation what generates how much threat managing threat is a legitimate skill. In game with a threat meter managing threat means what? You stop attacking when your mod plays a warning whistle?

Every game has a million variables under the surface. The idea that they should all be exposed to the player and that anything else is somehow bad design is silly. Especially things like threat which logically should be hidden information given that they exist in the mind of the enemy.

The history of WoW seems to be removing things that take player knowledge and judgement and replacing them with automation.

Edit: To me the game that WoW players are looking for is basically not a game. It's almost invalid to talk about skill or strategy in WoW combat - that seems to be completely missing the point of what WoW is about. It's like talking about the skill and strategy required in platforming in Uncharted - it's just fundamentally not about that. If you want platforming with skill you play a different game.

Which is fine I guess, but personally I am not a fan of "press X to win" "experiential" games. With a few exceptions I want a lot of game in my game. If I'm going to play a game that is 90% combat my personal desire is for combat to be challenging and rewarding, not just a way to get items and increase a meter while eating a sandwich.

Regardless of my personal opinion I think WoW has the "cast heal when the game tells you to cast heal" sub-genre market wrapped up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 26, 2012, 08:01:00 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 26, 2012, 08:13:40 PM
What Paelos said. If you were to intentionally obfuscate more information in WoW, you would need to also make the game much easier in order to avoid alienating a good deal of the playerbase.

Also, a lot of the information that is provided in the default UI in WoW today is only there because player-made addons provided that info for years. Which means that a substantial amount of WoW players want that info; things like threat meters and DPS parsers make it much easier for semi-hardcore guilds to break into high end raiding. Without knowing who did what wrong, it is difficult to improve. In a single player game, trial and error is fine. But when you're playing with 9-24 other people, it's helpful to know which of them stood in the fire or whatever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 08:19:44 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.

And moreover, the amount of useful information you get from those mods is always overstated. (In-combat. The amount of useful information you get for mulling over in your off-time is usually understated.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2012, 08:27:32 PM
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.   If figuring out a boss took 10-15 minutes like any other game, sure, hide it.  That's never going to be the case in a game with 9-25 other moving parts on top of whatever difficulty switch you're on.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 08:46:03 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.

That's both a cause and effect of how WoW is designed. The game does a lot to help lazy bad players but also encourages players to be lazy and bad. People tend to play up or down to expectations and WoW expects very little of players.

This is sort of a modern game design thing, like players playing a game with a map that tells them exactly where to go and still getting lost. A lot of games implicitly tell the player to shut their brains off, so they do, so they perform somewhat poorly at tasks they shouldn't have problems with.

Quote from: Merusk
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.

Defensive much? I could just as easily say that people who need everything spelled out for them, even things their own brains should be able to figure out with a small expenditure of actual effort, are either morons or incredibly lazy and want to feel like they are accomplishing something while performing at a level that would make a trained seal embarrassed.

Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

Quote
If figuring out a boss took 10-15 minutes like any other game, sure, hide it.  That's never going to be the case in a game with 9-25 other moving parts on top of whatever difficulty switch you're on.

What is the actual game in WoW? It's not figuring stuff out, it's not being good - is it just the willingness to grind rep and dailies and dungeons over and over? It seems that the skill of WoW is willingness to spend time playing WoW.

So let's say you do a boss for an hour, wipe to a new attack, then have to do it again. Ok, the alternative is what? Beat the boss on your first try then do the boss 500 more times anyway? What's the difference?

Quote from: Rendakor
What Paelos said. If you were to intentionally obfuscate more information in WoW, you would need to also make the game much easier in order to avoid alienating a good deal of the playerbase.

Sure. So then let's not pretend that WoW is a skillful strategically complex game. I'm not arguing that WoW should require more skill - that's not the game it is. Unfortunately that also applies to most MMOs, which is what this discussion is about. I'm arguing that there is a large untapped space for MMOs that do have game systems that require real skill and strategy.

Quote
Which means that a substantial amount of WoW players want that info; things like threat meters and DPS parsers make it much easier for semi-hardcore guilds to break into high end raiding.

DPS parsers and threat meters are fundamentally very different.

In a typical MMO you can see how much damage you are doing and how much damage your allies are doing. That information is not in any way obfuscated nor should it be. A DPS parser just collects and organizes that data. It's a different view of information you already have. In theory a player could mentally keep track of that data themselves and tally it afterwards - however being able to do that is probably not a skill the game should reward.

Threat is something that you can not see in the game, nor is there any reason you should be able to see it, any more than you should be able to see the million other variables that govern NPC behavior. You see the expression of threat in terms of who the AI is attacking, not the raw numbers. In addition players managing threat via experience, knowledge and intuition probably is a good skill to reward, as it's one of the few genuine skills in a game like WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 08:52:31 PM
In any case threat mechanics/meters are a shitty example to pick, regardless of which side is right in the argument overall.

Threat meters in WoW exist primarily because of raid fights where it was important for a specific character to maintain a #2 position in terms of threat output. This is information that is effectively impossible for players to determine for themselves through trial and error alone, especially when there are 40 people in a raid creating their own little variables, like the interactions between debuffs from one class and damage type from another and the maximum debuff cap (very low in the early days of WoW), etc.

I mean, it could be done, but not on the sort of time scale where you are dealing with a real world situation of trying to keep 40 people entertained, not for any but the most singleminded, odd people. And spending time on those people has always been a fairly foolish use of dev time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 09:10:01 PM
In any case threat mechanics/meters are a shitty example to pick, regardless of which side is right in the argument overall.

Threat meters in WoW exist primarily because of raid fights where it was important for a specific character to maintain a #2 position in terms of threat output. This is information that is effectively impossible for players to determine for themselves through trial and error alone, especially when there are 40 people in a raid creating their own little variables, like the interactions between debuffs from one class and damage type from another and the maximum debuff cap (very low in the early days of WoW), etc.

Isn't this just bad design then?

I thought the argument was that by not "obfuscating" mechanics Blizzard was forced to rely on good design instead of gimmick design, but you seem to be arguing that threat meters were needed to counteract bad design.

Why would you make a 40-person raid where a specific individual has to have the second-most amount of threat? Instead of mitigating that with "why don't we just explicitly tell you how much threat everyone has" it seems it would be better to just scrap that design entirely.

Edit: The reason I'm picking on threat meters is that managing threat is one of the most fundamental skills in a genre that doesn't require much skill. Making threat meter explicit means that rather than rewarding people for an accurate mental model of threat you are rewarding them for herding cats properly.

A lot of this argument seems to boil down to "when you are grouped with 39 morons herding cats is the only relevant skill." In that case maybe 40 (or 15, or 10, or 5) people is too many or too many for the game systems and encounter design. As a design philosophy if you are going to make a raid that takes 40 people it's better to balance it so that the 10 best largely determine success rather than that the 10 worst can sabotage the entire group.

Edit: To circle around to the original argument again there is IMO a lot of room for an MMO game that has a lot more meat in terms of combat mechanics. That could be turn-based combat, real-time combat, FPS combat, Dark Souls combat, whatever. We're getting bogged down in how meaty WoW combat is, at this point I'm willing to agree to disagree with anyone who thinks WoW combat takes a lot of skill and strategy. (At least of the right kind)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 26, 2012, 09:34:40 PM
Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

Could you clarify this a bit?  I'm kind of fuzzy on the distinctions being used here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 26, 2012, 10:42:15 PM
WoW doesn't take a lot of skill and strategy; that's not why I play it. When I was playing WoW a lot (WotLK era) it was for the shared social experience; my guild consisted of some RL friends and work buddies, and we got to sit on Ventrilo bullshitting while we killed internet dragons. Now, some of the people in the guild were serious gamers, but others were our girlfriends, friends, etc. that had heard of World of Warcraft and wanted to give it a shot. If (or perhaps, when) it was more challenging, those non-gamers would never have turned into long term subscribers and it's largely this casual, non-gamer market that made WoW so successful. Arguing for more challenging, skill-based gameplay seems to be arguing for a smaller, niche title (like Darkfall maybe); however, listening to those clamoring for greater difficulty is what fucked up WoW so bad in Cata.

Also, things like threat meters haven't really been relevant since BC days so that kind of a silly argument. Threat management isn't a skill in WoW anymore beyond the first few seconds of a fight.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 10:55:51 PM
Hidden information is information that is not available to the player but is available to another player or the system. For example opponent hands in poker, position of units in a fog of war, etc. Revealing hidden information can fundamentally break a game.

Obfuscation is deliberately muddying something that should be understandable. It's spending effort to make things less understandable. (As opposed to not putting effort in in the first place) I can't think of many legitimate examples of this in video games. Maybe something like the crap that gets smeared over your screen in a shooter when you take damage. That's a literal obfuscation of the screen, though I don't think that's necessarily negative. (Even though I generally hate that screen-smearing crap)

There's a third category of sort of UI stuff like DPS parsers, listing the DPS of a weapon, etc. Stuff that does work for the player that they could do on their own with some busy work. If you want to know the DPS of a weapon you can multiply attack speed by damage yourself. It's not hidden information, but on the other hand I wouldn't consider not listing DPS as obfuscation either. I'm ambivalent towards things like that - for example DPS doesn't measure overkill and by presenting it as a stat it can seem more important than it really is. In an RTS two units with the exact same DPS can vary a lot in effectiveness due to overkill, so to me presenting DPS as a stat can be both misleading and encourage players to not think carefully.

There are no hard and fast rules of game design. Is it important for a game to accurately describe all it's systems? It depends on the game. That's the only real answer.

I don't like the idea that if games don't give players the exact info that WoW gives them that game is "obfuscating" something. It's just a different game. What people are calling "obfuscation" is just a game not making data or rules explicit - which is fine for some games. And there is a ton of data that WoW doesn't make explicit either. Figuring out core mechanics can be a core mechanic in itself.

Quote from: Rendakor
WoW doesn't take a lot of skill and strategy; that's not why I play it.

Well..yeah. The broader point I am making is that the continuum for MMOs is pretty narrow where even game much "harder" and more skill intensive than WoW aren't much to write home about.

Quote
Arguing for more challenging, skill-based gameplay seems to be arguing for a smaller, niche title (like Darkfall maybe); however, listening to those clamoring for greater difficulty is what fucked up WoW so bad in Cata.

It fucked up WoW because WoW is fundamentally not that game and it's too late to change it. But to circle back to the original argument again, League of Legends is skill based, Call of Duty is skill based. Monster Hunter is skill based.  A lot of skill-based games find broad audiences and a lot of low-skill players have fun playing them. I don't see any reason to believe that an MMO with meatier skill-based combat would necessarily be niche unless it went hand-in-hand with crazy shit like terrible graphics and perma-death.

Give me a Monster Hunter MMO!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 27, 2012, 12:21:07 AM
Creating cooperative content designed to be tackled by groups of varying skill-level players is not easy. I'm not even sure it's possible without some hidden stat* that gave buffs to "bad" players so that they could kill bosses or whatever with their skilled friends. In things like LoL and CoD the content is all PVP, so while you might have some noobs/bads on your team, the other team should have some too and the result is a fair fight.

In a PVE game, how do you solve the problem of not being able to invite your baddie friend to the raid because he just isn't good enough at the game? If you don't solve that problem, than you're limiting your audience to only people who are very good at games (and also have good hardware, low latency, etc.) and you end up with a niche title.

*which would be datamined by the community before the game's release, and exploited to hell as guilds spend hours suiciding before taking on a new boss.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 03:06:58 AM
The WoW challenge, and most MMO raiding (because it all ends up on spoiler sites) is about multiple people executing a complex strategy without screwing up / being skilled enough to cover when someone inevitably does screw up. It's hard because there's generally lots going on and lots of information to be tracking so you need to work out your personal variation on strategy and practice. That and talking shit on teamspeak before and after.

Unless things have changed a lot since Wrath.

What is the actual game in WoW? It's not figuring stuff out, it's not being good - is it just the willingness to grind rep and dailies and dungeons over and over? It seems that the skill of WoW is willingness to spend time playing WoW.

I think it's fair to say you are either an exceptional player or have no clue. The percentage of the player base that could do hard mode challenges in Wrath was extremely small. Indeed they only made sense expending development effort on because they represented an unachievable target for the majority and bragging rights for the capable.

Why you are arguing about threat meters I have no clue. Threat meters were included because guessing threat wasn't the challenge blizzard wanted to project, it forced DPS to take responsibility for threat management and it allowed them to increase the challenge encounters because it tightened the gap between the extremely skilled (who could intuitively calculate threat caps) and the mortals.

(once again, this is relative to wrath where I stopped playing, WoW is dead to me cause Cata exploded my guild).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 27, 2012, 04:19:05 AM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on. Also the fact that the individual fractals are relatively short you (meaning the developer) can add or remove them from the rotation easily making content updates more frequent (in theory atleast).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 04:27:20 AM
The percentage of the player base that could do hard mode challenges in Wrath was extremely small.

Isn't that a matter of having catassed long enough to have all the needed equipment, and having memorized like a human machine the routines you have to perform over and over and and the patterns to whack the moles in a timely fashion, more than a matter of skill?

This sounds snarky, but it's a honest question. MMORPGs where movement and aiming are non-factors keep feeling to me like exercises in becoming a better human macro, as there's no real room for talent or improvisation.

A possible counter-argument would be that that's a skill too, after all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 27, 2012, 04:38:54 AM
If swtor had threat meters then Jedi Knights would have realised that taunts work when you have aggro way back in January. Everyone would have ended up happier.

I'm not a big fan of obfuscating anything about character abilities. Though some degree of obfuscation on NPC abilities is cool. I really don't mind looking up boss strategies and it gives the community something to figure out in downtime.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 04:48:54 AM
I feel the same. Because so far I've been only bashing on MMORPG hotbar combat, I feel the need to state that even though I don't love it, and I don't think it requires any special skill, I've enjoyed it for a long time in many games, and I think (as I stated so many times) it makes perfect sense that they'll keep developing games with such system, improving it or not, cause it's a valid bridge between turn-based combat (which is immortal) and skill-based action combat.

But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.



Edit to add more frustration:

Next step is probably a big red button integrated in the game UI that says "Show walkthrough" and just shows you how to beat the boss, with nifty ghost characters and big blinky markers on the ground and on the skills you have to activate in the right order. Nothing will be obfuscated, all you'll have to do will be focusing on performing perfectly (as a musician without any creativity), and players will start moaning and complaining about all the other games that don't have the "SOLVE ENCOUNTER" big red button integrated. Same way everyone now complains when there isn't a big huge tutorial telling you "GET GUN, SHOOT STUFF, ENEMIES ARE RED" because maaaan that's hard why should I even bother with this when there are other games that tell me that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 04:50:14 AM
For an MMO WoW was relatively forgiving in gearing. The difference between extreme cat-ass and moderate was not that great compared to the difference in execution.

Your question doesn't work though. Skill is by definition memorization, optimisation and mastery gained through repetition / practice. Being able to do the top level WoW raids required skill.

But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Because for most people the fun is in execution and perfecting that rather than the trial and error of discovering how the encounter works. But that's a personal choice. Same reason I want to know the actual weapon numbers in planetside I guess.

For the purposes of discussion here's a WoW Wrath hard mode raid Firefighter Mimiron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jee971qfSMQ). This is a demonstration so it's a near optimal takedown and it looks a lot easier than it is when you're in the game. There's hundreds of ways this can go wrong and a group of average gamers trying to master the encounter are going to face-plant in all of them for a long time. The feeling when you get it down, for the first time and on a repeatable basis, is a feeling of achievement which is what MMO's can offer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 05:43:24 AM
But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Because for most people the fun is in execution and perfecting that rather than the trial and error of discovering how the encounter works. But that's a personal choice.

So we kind of agree that everything can be considered a skill. Playing the piano requires skill, so do crossword puzzles, or skeet shooting. But we also agree that when you put it like that then it's obvious that these games (or WoW) are somewhat deceiving about what it takes to be good at them, as they give you the illusion that you have lots of options, abilities, powers, freedom of movement, and eventually it all boils down to reading the script and executing it as a machine. Again, no room for improvisation, no room for creativity. "Skill is by definition memorization, optimisation and mastery gained through repetition / practice." you say, and I think that matches with what I said: WoW (and clones) is about training people in becoming human-macros, as the lack of "resolution" in the way actions are performed (like the million ways you can hit or miss a target in skeet shooting, or the million differences in the intensity you can push the key of a piano) doesn't leave any room for much other than "remember the script/don't remember the script", followed by attempts at perfectly executing it using a very simple non-analog instrument.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. Rock Band is nothing but WoW with a different theme. Does that requires skill? Yeah. Does that require group coordination? Absolutely. Does that require memorizing a score? It's the whole point. Does that require whacking moles flawlessly as soon as they appear according to the score? You bet.

Conversely, hotbar MMORPGs are nothing but the computerized rendition of playing in a band, but only with super-ultra-very dumbed down musical instruments, and you are only allowed to play covers.

That definitely involves skill! At the same time, it wouldn't be bad to admit that it's more a fantasy-themed skill-based exercise, or a challenge, in routinization than any kind of skill-based combat. It takes a higher resolution for that, it takes more unpredictability, and it takes more possible outcomes to any given action in any given millisecond.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 27, 2012, 05:48:21 AM
For an MMO WoW was relatively forgiving in gearing.

the line quoted is in past tense so somewhat relevant: I would not call vanilla WOW that forgiving when you had to get the +resist sets (which weren't really useful elsewhere) for the raids. Luckily they got rid of that mentality relatively fast.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 27, 2012, 06:08:28 AM
You guys are arguing that Yo-yo Ma is less skilled than John Williams and any one can become Yo-yo Ma with enough practice, so his skill is worthless.  It's hilarious.  He needs things spelled out, there's no skill there.  :uhrr:

Not all people are creators and not all who practice can execute.

Quote from: Merusk
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.

Defensive much? I could just as easily say that people who need everything spelled out for them, even things their own brains should be able to figure out with a small expenditure of actual effort, are either morons or incredibly lazy and want to feel like they are accomplishing something while performing at a level that would make a trained seal embarrassed.

Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

No, I'm not.  I stand behind the statement for what was being discussed at the time - hiding important information from the players that they just had to figure out for themselves.   You appear to be arguing something completely different.  The obfuscation that was being discussed was akin to pulling a person in to a stakes poker game and expecting them to "just figure it out."  That's not good for anyone but the people fleecing them.   

Yes, hidden information is important to the game of poker, but hiding the rules is not.  Raid mechanics are the rules of the game.  Execution and understanding of how to adapt your particular character to those rules.  Just because you read something doesn't mean you're an expert at it any more than memorizing the numerous systems to Blackjack means you're going to always walk away from the table a winner.  It takes practice and experience to get better at it and know how to apply it.

By your definition there's no skill to musicians, singers, carpentry, engineering, coding and a host of other things.  It's all simple rule systems you just have to apply like 'a trained seal' once you know the basics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 06:29:49 AM
Oh good, a retarded argument that MMOs do/do not require "skill" to play.  Next someone is going to break out the McDonalds of MMOs argument and then someone is going to bring up Fallen Earth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on November 27, 2012, 06:31:20 AM
Who gives a shit if MMOs require skill of any kind to play. What matters is are they fun.

If TESO is fun then it'll do OK, if it isn't then it won't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 27, 2012, 06:33:25 AM
Who gives a shit if MMOs require skill of any kind to play. What matters is are they fun.

If TESO is fun then it'll do OK, if it isn't then it won't.

Generally speaking (with some exceptions), the skill part is what keeps me interested. Almost anything is fun for a little while due to its novelty factor, but I just don't have it in me anymore to buy a new MMO just for the novelty factor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 06:46:41 AM
For clarity,

The argument is not if MMORPGs require skill or not. They obviously require skill, pretty much everything requires skill.

The argument was about hotbar combat and other forms of combat, and what kind of skill(s) they require.
Then it branched into obfuscating or not obfuscating things, and what kind of skill(s) and fun those two approaches enable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 27, 2012, 06:58:43 AM
Have we done 'what makes a game a MMOG' yet?

That's a good one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 07:02:12 AM
Lately, with the obvious lack of discussions going on here (this pretty much being the only one active in more than a month, outside of some ongoing threads about specific games that don't have a subforum), and lots of products crossing borders all the time, I've been wondering if we have finally reached the point where a MMOG board is redundant, and it should be merged with the PC/Console Gaming (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?board=3.0) one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 07:08:22 AM
I wouldn't go that far.  MMORPGs are still a hobby for most people vs. Single Player games that are just played until beaten for the majority of those that buy them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 07:11:54 AM
But that board is not the "Single player" board, and there's plenty of multiplayer if not multiplayer-only games being discussed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 07:50:04 AM
But that board is not the "Single player" board, and there's plenty of multiplayer if not multiplayer-only games being discussed.

So?  They still aren't MMOGs.  I would guess a majority of the people on this board are always playing, or at least, aren't far from playing an MMORPG while playing a lot of the games in that section.  Hence an MMOG section.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 27, 2012, 07:57:11 AM
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/LinneaRetina/2011/skyrim-horse.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 27, 2012, 10:37:20 AM
...eventually it all boils down to reading the script and executing it as a machine. Again, no room for improvisation, no room for creativity.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong.  To use DPS as an example (correctly regarded as the least challenging role) the skill, so to speak, is executing your script like a machine while simultaneously maximizing your time on target, compressing the DPS ramp-up time as much as possible to make the most efficient use of your time on target, making the most efficient use of short-term buffs, and decreasing the negative impact you have on the rest of the raid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 11:49:14 AM
Yeah, the no room for improvisation and creativity thing just blows my mind. For one thing, if that's true of hotbar PVE, it's just as true of ALL PVE. Action combat is not more "creative". I mean seriously, what?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 11:50:58 AM
Action combat has a whole other variable of movement.  And not just standing in the fire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 11:53:29 AM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 12:49:36 PM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?

What?

In traditional DIKU hotbar combat you typically stand in one place using your rotation for dps or tanking only moving when there is a ground affect or there is a specific encounter design that forces you to group up at a certain time or shift in a certain direction.  The most skillful "action" you get is as a tank is positioning the boss so it doesn't cleave your group or moving to intercept adds.  The most skillful "action" you get as a dps is movement to stay on target and keep your dps time at max.  The most skillful "action" as a healer is actually the most involved, but it has nothing to do with your character, and more with moving your mouse around the UI clicking on boxes and reacting to icons.

In a twitchy, action based game, the most basic elements of combat ( attacking, dodging, blocking) require aiming and positioning that adds a complete additional layer of skill and involvement that I find much more pleasant.  This is in addition to everything I wrote above.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 27, 2012, 12:51:05 PM
There are quite a few raid and dungeon encounters that go way beyond that, and I'm not just talking about Heigan.

(then again, they are also the ones that lead to ridonkolous fun times when in pugs  :awesome_for_real:)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 12:51:47 PM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?

You are thinking in GW2 terms. I am are thinking in action RPG terms, which we all agree are not where the MMOs are but where some of us want MMOs to go to.
I am making the argument that movement in hotbar MMORPGs is mostly irrelevant other than for sandbox-explorative reasons. That's why I made the comparison with Rock Band.


EDIT: Added quote.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 12:57:01 PM
You are thinking in GW2 terms. I am are thinking in action RPG terms, which we all agree are not where the MMOs are but where some of us want MMOs to go to.
I am making the argument that movement in hotbar MMORPGs is mostly irrelevant other than for sandbox-explorative reasons. That's why I made the comparison with Rock Band.

I'm thinking of GW2?  I would call GW2 a hybrid though.  I would love the shit out of an MMO that uses something like Zelda's Ocarina of Time combat system and dungeon style.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2012, 01:03:12 PM
Yeah, you guys may want to stop citing GW2. GW2 is part of the trend to more action combat. It's not on the side of the hot bar tab targeting stand around crowd. Its part of the march Against that, and most of you have praised them for it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
I'm confused.  I always praised GW2's combat as a step in the right direction, away from old hat hotbar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 01:25:24 PM
I'm thinking of GW2?  

Not you. Ingmar, when he mentioned double tap as if our argument were based on that. And yes, I think it's a step in the right direction too, and I called it a bridge between the old hotbar combat and the evolution towards more action and meaningful movement/positioning/aiming.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 02:53:18 PM
The part I'm really questioning is why you think action combat involves 'creativity'. My comparison to saxophone solos probably went over people's heads, sorry. (By way of explanation, Charlie Parker's solos were mostly/all improvised, while Glenn Miller was notorious for having all solos pre-written for his big band.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 27, 2012, 03:17:05 PM
In a twitchy, action based game, the most basic elements of combat ( attacking, dodging, blocking) require aiming and positioning that adds a complete additional layer of skill and involvement that I find much more pleasant.  This is in addition to everything I wrote above.

And when you dodge that giant's club smashing into the ground, you could almost go so far as to say you're exhibiting remarkable skill in not standing in telegraphed area of effect attacks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 03:50:29 PM
Action combat has a whole other variable of movement.  And not just standing in the fire.

So do the raids like the one I linked. The whole raid is constantly moving and it must be fairly precise. It's also a bit more skilful than guitar hero because in guitar hero an error is done and gone. In WoW an error, like a healer being out of position and getting too many stacks of a debuff, can be either a failure or covered by other players dynamic reaction. And the window of time to observe, decide and act can be really quite tight. But probably not twitch level because it's more about tactics and there's online latency to consider.

The fact you think it's easy only means you probably haven't done it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 27, 2012, 04:11:33 PM
I think part of the discussion that seems to be unstated is PvP vs. PvE.  PvE is really almost always going to disproportionately reward understanding how the AI works, whether that is understanding a boss encounter, or just the general behaviors of AI.   A great deal of GW2 is based on PvP combat.  Dodging becomes a lot more interesting then you've not only got a guy casting a spell at you, but a guy who KNOWS you can dodge it, which might mean he tries to center the spell towards where you will dodge, but then YOU know he might do that, and so forth.  That sort of "dance" is always going to be more interesting to me, from a gameplay perspective, than the most complex choreographed dance I need to do for a raid.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 04:26:18 PM
The part I'm really questioning is why you think action combat involves 'creativity'. My comparison to saxophone solos probably went over people's heads, sorry. (By way of explanation, Charlie Parker's solos were mostly/all improvised, while Glenn Miller was notorious for having all solos pre-written for his big band.)

I never used the word creative.  I just think action, or twitchy combat, adds another layer of skill in the game and in turn that makes the game more enjoyable for me.  

And when you dodge that giant's club smashing into the ground, you could almost go so far as to say you're exhibiting remarkable skill in not standing in telegraphed area of effect attacks.

I would agree with that in most respects, and I never said both forms of combat are worlds apart.  But that usually only matters during special attacks or scripted events.  In action combat your gameplay is just that.


So do the raids like the one I linked. The whole raid is constantly moving and it must be fairly precise. It's also a bit more skilful than guitar hero because in guitar hero an error is done and gone. In WoW an error, like a healer being out of position and getting too many stacks of a debuff, can be either a failure or covered by other players dynamic reaction. And the window of time to observe, decide and act can be really quite tight. But probably not twitch level because it's more about tactics and there's online latency to consider.

The fact you think it's easy only means you probably haven't done it.


You're putting words in my mouth because I never said it was easy or that it lacked skill or you can compare WOW to Guitar Hero.  I agree with you 100% in that raid encounters, especially high end ones, are incredibly difficult and success is balanced on a razor thin edge.  They require high amounts of coordination and effort.

My point is if you added twitch combat to it, it would make the menial task of "press button, make affect" more interesting for me.  I enjoy the task of aiming and positioning my attacks.  

I want TERA's combat in my MMOs.  I really enjoyed tanking and dps in that game.  That act of manipulating my character and performing abilities was satisfying in its own right.  In hotbar combat I don't get the same satisfaction of performing my rotation.

Edit:  Shit, I want Dark Souls combat in my MMOs.  What I want, essentially, is for some MMORPGs to begin to blend open persistent world games with arcade style play.  I'm tired of having 2-3 banks of hotbars with abilities that I have to hit in order.  I love the raiding aspect of the games where it takes teamwork, concentration and effort, but I want the basics of combat to go away from hotbars and keypresses.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 04:28:30 PM
A lot of the things you're saying you didn't say, Falc did, and those responses are (or were originally) directed at him.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 27, 2012, 04:31:44 PM
Holy crap all this threat meter discussion makes me want to cry.

It doesn't matter if the threat meter is hidden or in plain view, if your game has a threat meter it's terrible.  It leads to very static and formulaic combat, which (at least for me) makes it extremely boring.  Don't heal too much, don't do too much damage, etc...

Threat needs to have a good deal of randomness to it to make sure every fight isn't the exact same way, force you to pay attention and adjust to changing circumstances.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 04:36:49 PM
In action based combat you can win some fights due to manual ability, reflexes, and/or creative unscripted manouvering and thinking, for sure. That's how I see it. EDIT: We can call it "unscripted" if we decide that "creative" is really not a good word for it. Dark Souls is a perfect example but Dark Souls is probably one of the best games ever made so it's probably aiming too high. But sure, that's the target. Unscripted combat where there is room for so many more layers of player direct input than, in my opinion, in hotbar tab-targeted combat.

Also, solo pve hotbar combat is WAY easier than any Guitar Hero game. On the other hand, I compared group instances and raiding to Rock Band (group coordination) not Guitar hero. The difference is important.

EDIT: plenty.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 05:19:52 PM
For the purposes of discussion here's a WoW Wrath hard mode raid Firefighter Mimiron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jee971qfSMQ). This is a demonstration so it's a near optimal takedown and it looks a lot easier than it is when you're in the game.

Yeah, sorry, this looks dull as shit and is literally "don't stand in the fire."

The "skill" here is basically the same as in every raid ever - know which spot to move to when. (And herding cats, which is really the main skill of every raid encounter) Go watch a video of the Ifrit fight in FFXIV - it's basically the exact same fight! Which makes sense given that there is so little to the mechanics. Nearly every raid boils down to "don't stand in the fire" because there just aren't that many ways to demonstrate skill in a combat system so basic. Positioning doesn't really matter (outside of not standing in fires), there's no active dodging or blocking (outside of moving out from spawning fires), not much in terms of movement options (other than running away from fires).

"How do we make this enemy hard?" is a pretty difficult question to answer in a game where combat is so limited and execution is trivial.

Quote from: KallDrexx
It doesn't matter if the threat meter is hidden or in plain view, if your game has a threat meter it's terrible.  It leads to very static and formulaic combat, which (at least for me) makes it extremely boring.  Don't heal too much, don't do too much damage, etc...

Threat needs to have a good deal of randomness to it to make sure every fight isn't the exact same way, force you to pay attention and adjust to changing circumstances.

Agree 100%. I've said for a quite a while that the ability of players to exactly dictate how combat works out is a huge limiting factor in MMOs. I think the stories and fun times people remember most from MMOs are the times when crazy shit happened, yet the systems of MMOs are dedicated to players exactly controlling the experience such that crazy shit can't happen. To some degree things like Rifts are an attempt to counter this but at a different strata.

With more randomized threat players would have to think on their feet, organize on the fly, hybrid types would be more viable, redundancy of roles more viable, etc.

In other words WoW players would hate it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 05:53:02 PM
Quote
But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Talking to people super into WoW makes it clear that some people are just wired differently.

When you get to a raid in WoW you try, you die, you learn from experience, you try again. Depending on how quickly you adapt and how well you can recover from a bad situation this process can take a widely variable amount of time. Let's call this phase 1.

Next you get to the phase where you know what to do to some extent and you do it, while trying to optimize so that it becomes safer and faster. You can fall into local minima here and this phase can last forever if you don't have outside knowledge. You may have hit on a pretty good strategy that is different from the optimal one. (Phase 2)

Finally you reach the phase where you know exactly what to do and just try to execute on that - at this point the only way to fail is to botch the execution. You know the global optimal solution, or at least the best known solution. (Phase 3)

To me phase 3 is the least interesting phase. It's the phase where the encounter becomes rote. But that's the phase WoW players want to skip directly to! Anything else is erroneously termed "obfuscation" apparently.

And that's fine. People can play and like WoW. But one WoW is enough. (Or, more accurately, one WoW and 50 bad clones) What I don't get is why every game has to be WoW and why branching away from that has to be a niche effort. It strikes me as some guy who is super into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the arcade game saying God of War will be niche because the fighting is too involved and people just want to keep putting in quarters and mashing buttons.

The fact that WoW is successful and has lousy combat doesn't mean lousy combat is the reason it's successful. And so far AFAIK there isn't a game that has much better combat in the context of a game that rivals WoW. You can point to a game like Planetside and say "see it has twitch combat and it's not that popular" but on the other hand it's Planetside.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 06:22:18 PM

Yes, that's how it goes. And by the time phase 3 has begun to bore the next tier of content is out to replace it. So the people still stuck in phase 1 and 2 can keep going, probably with a boost from some low-hanging fruit from the new content, and the people who have mastered and farmed it move on.

It's also why a raid oriented game needs a regular addition of more content.

Yeah, sorry, this looks dull as shit and is literally "don't stand in the fire."

The "skill" here is basically the same as in every raid ever - know which spot to move to when.

Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button. Everything looks easy when being demonstrated by skilled people from an eagle eye view. When you're at ground level tracking your mana, your cooldowns, your aggro, your team, the enemy, the enemies attacks, patches of fire and your own positioning it becomes a pretty high skill game. And the stats for this are available because a very small number of players achieved the reward for completing all hard modes.

And AFAIK I know bumping up the raid difficulty in Cata helped lose them a couple of million people.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button. Everything looks easy when being demonstrated by skilled people from an eagle eye view. When you're at ground level tracking your mana, your cooldowns, your aggro, your team, the enemy, the enemies attacks, patches of fire and your own positioning it becomes a pretty high skill game.

Almost everything takes skill. The question is what kind of skill, what range of skill, is that skill an interesting and worthwhile thing to test, etc.

Sure, you can make "don't stand in the fire" REALLY hard if the fire is big and spawns really fast, and thus beating that encounter requires more skill of some sort, but that doesn't make it particular interesting or strategic.

An FPS has a lot of different ways for a game to introduce skill tests and strategy. You don't just put a crosshair over a guy and shoot them. You move, often with a physics based movement system. You jump around. You use terrain in a variety of ways. You use strategies that take advantage of sight lines. The game may have active dodging or an Unreal style teleporter or whatever. And you can also not stand in fire and manage ammo and keep track of your position and that of the enemy.

In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low. Players can move so you can make them move out of fire. They can use abilities so you can make them use the right abilities at the right time. But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction. They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else. Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

You can tune numbers so that an encounter takes more skill via a smaller margin for error but that's not the same as making a game interesting. There's nothing interesting about Battletoads or those crazy Mario romhacks, even though they are hard as hell.

The number of ways a WoW encounter can test skill is low because the number of meaningful things players can do in combat is low. By the way this is the exact reason Arkham City boss fights are so terrible. Against a non-human-sized single enemy there's just not many ways you can meaningfully interact.

Quote
And AFAIK I know bumping up the raid difficulty in Cata helped lose them a couple of million people.

WoW is an old game with a well-established audience with certain expectations. Getting 6 years into WoW then sitting around a design roundtable saying "hey guys, our game is kind of simple, maybe we should make the fights take more strategy" is silly. That doesn't mean other designs can't work, just that swapping designs that late in the game doesn't work.

Edit: Primary point again: give me an MMO with more interesting combat. What I consider "more interesting" is very broad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 09:46:37 PM

In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low.

heh, you must be kidding.

You're just extremely biased. The encounter I linked took 10 minutes just to discuss the positioning and tactics and each character has to be tracking a lot of variables and using multiple abilities it didn't even mention. In most shooters you have a tiny number of abilities, your interaction with others is far more limited and environmental effects you need to react to are miniscule. Planetside 2 is much more basic tactically than WoW raiding.

What it does have is the adrenaline and twitch of tracking fast moving targets, which is fun. And if you want that then you don't want an MMO. PS2 is laggy, the field is so large that battles are dispersed and unstructured and the free movement means it tends to be imbalanced zerg rolling over defenders or empty bases. There are already more than enough shooters that provide good twitch action we don't need MMO's aping them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 10:03:44 PM
There's also a lot more than just 'don't stand in 234 different kinds of fire' that may not be evident in the video. There are also adds to manage, 3 different segments of the boss to target and attack (not all available all the time), I seem to recall there being drops that people have to pick up and use, etc. It's an extremely complicated fight, well beyond just the ground effects everywhere.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 27, 2012, 10:32:02 PM
And like I said before, there are quite a few encounters that break the mold. We're not in Molten Core anymore, etc. Just off the top of my head (I'm not even a raider, so I'm sure I'm missing quite a few):
- enemies using player-scale abilities without an aggro table and some rudimentary reaction scripts (cleanse debuffs from friendlies, CC enemy healers, focus fire the squishiest targets): BRD fight in the tier0.5 questline, Priestess Delrissa and friends, Faction Champions
- encounters with arcade elements: Alysrazor (you get to play Starfox flying through the air through random fire rings), Vizier whatshisface (he starts shooting very large numbers of random-moving / bouncing projectiles at one point, just like dodging shots in 'bullet hell' games), Zon'ozz (have to bounce a ping-pong ball between players for a long time and then bounce it into the boss, making sure it doesn't hit too many or too few people and it rebounds at the right angle), Saboteur mantid boss (places bombs that explode in bomberman-like patterns). Actually there are a lot of such encounters while leveling up / questing too, but they're so easy and impossible to fail that I'm not sure they count...
- positioning requirements: Vizier whatshisface targets someone in the raid and channels a high-damage attack on them; the tank must interpose between the boss and the target to save them. The Will of the Emperor fight has the tanks dodge combo attacks from the bosses they're tanking - afaik these are randomized, so you have to watch their movement to dodge in the right direction. If you dodge 5 in a row, you get to do a 1million damage attack on the boss; if you fail to dodge, you get an armor debuff that makes you much harder to heal. Also in the brewery dungeon there are mobs that constantly channel healing beams between themselves - players must interpose between these beams so they get healed instead of the mobs. There are several mobs in MOP that have a directional shield, so you have to attack them from a certain side.

In fact, positioning and non-scripted movement is one of the most important things in high-end WOW arena PVP (putting aside the lulzy class balance issues) if we're comparing FPS pvp to MMO pvp. If we're comparing MMO pve to FPS pve, well... I don't remember Global Agenda's pve being too fun or interesting at all.


e: 7/11 WOW classes have some sort of combat movement ability on short cooldowns (the rest 'just' have various ways to increase movement speed). Mages can blink forward, druids can choose to blink forward / teleport to an enemy / teleport to a friendly, hunters can disengage (fly backwards), rogues can shadowstep, warlocks have a personal teleport and a group portal (they can set exit/entrance), monks have dodge rolling and a personal teleport, warriors have various charge (friendly / enemy) abilities and a targeted leap attack.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 11:07:53 PM
There's also a lot more than just 'don't stand in 234 different kinds of fire' that may not be evident in the video. There are also adds to manage, 3 different segments of the boss to target and attack (not all available all the time), I seem to recall there being drops that people have to pick up and use, etc. It's an extremely complicated fight, well beyond just the ground effects everywhere.

Almost any other game can do all of this and more.

Quote
- enemies using player-scale abilities without an aggro table and some rudimentary reaction scripts (cleanse debuffs from friendlies, CC enemy healers, focus fire the squishiest targets): BRD fight in the tier0.5 questline, Priestess Delrissa and friends, Faction Champions
- encounters with arcade elements:
...

And these as well.

I want to make a distinction between base gameplay mechanics and individual boss gimmicks. Flying around like in Starfox, dodging bouncing balls, etc, are not base game mechanics in WoW, they are boss gimmicks. (I'm using gimmicks in the non-pejorative sense) It's cool that there is a boss where you have to dodge left or right 5 times in a row I guess, but dodging attacks like that matters in what percentage of WoW encounters? 0.01%? In a game where dodging is part of the core combat system you can dodge a variety of attacks from a variety of enemies at almost any time - not that there is one specific enemy that has what is a basically a QTE built into it.

In a way a lot of these boss battles are one-off separate mini-games or puzzles where the designers brainstorm ways to uniquely script them to keep them interesting because standard combat is too limited.


Quote from: Kageru
There are already more than enough shooters that provide good twitch action we don't need MMO's aping them.

What a weird defensive reaction. Not only do you want WoW to be the way it is you demand that literally every MMO play in your preferred style. We don't need MMOs with decent combat? I disagree - I need that. And some MMO is going to nail the combat along with other stuff and a bunch of other people are also going to agree.

It's one thing to personally prefer something but demanding that every MMO match that preference (and that none match mine) is absurd.

There are already plenty of shitty boring RPGs with bland combat - so why do we need MMOs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 27, 2012, 11:16:59 PM
I always thought "creative raiding" lead to emergency patches and bans.  :why_so_serious:
In my experience most MMOs do not appreciate creative ways of defeating raid encounters...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 28, 2012, 12:08:46 AM
Funny, I seem to remember the Faction Champions fight in TotGC being one of the most universally-loathed boss encounters in WoW's history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 28, 2012, 12:31:52 AM
Funny, I seem to remember the Faction Champions fight in TotGC being one of the most universally-loathed boss encounters in WoW's history.
Not a coincidence.  :why_so_serious: I personally loved the encounter (and the similar 5-man "pvp-ish" encounters), but I admit I'm a crazy outlier in this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on November 28, 2012, 12:53:58 AM
I always thought "creative raiding" lead to emergency patches and bans.  :why_so_serious:
In my experience most MMOs do not appreciate creative ways of defeating raid encounters...

This is my thought as well. I took a long break from classic MMO and visited GW2...eh...everyone's being 'creative' is a given.
The mobs are certainly 'creative' enough. Doesn't seem to be an aggro table anywhere. Fuckers hit at random, and hit hard. No targeted healing means no blaming of healers.
And the trash are really trash. Trash that's just there to slow you down, and barely reward you. Dodge mechanics that seems to reward paying attention, except with all the spell effects going off at melee range (can't be turned off), how anyone can dodge well is dependent on their eye tolerance level. I certainly can't keep up with 5 AoEs going off every 5 seconds.

Till this day, I still wondered if standing still in Twilight Arbor, shooting at tree boss, dodging red circle every 15 seconds is the 'legit' way of doing it. I tried walking up to the tree boss before, only to get insta-gibbed.

Then Citadel of Flame, where people were supposed to survive waves of mobs, while taking out just acolytes during an event turned into - 'ok hit the acolyte, then run out of the room, till they respawn, then hit them again.'

Like I said, I'm not expecting static, tank n spank, but most of GW2 encounters were too 'creative'. There's always that feeling of randomness attached to it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 28, 2012, 01:00:08 AM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button.

You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy, before you can push that one on/off (fire/nonfire) button. The skill is actually trying to make sure the crosshair is on that one pixel that is the enemy instead of on any of the other million ones on screen. While moving.

In both games you push one or a few more digital (so, just on and off) button to hit and perform, but in FPSs your mouse hand has to fight every single millisecond not to be in the wrong part of the screen whereas 99.9% of it is the wrong part of the screen. And this is while you and your enemies are moving and you probably are too.

That concept stays true for games like Dark Souls (more) and Tera (less) too, although to a much much lower degree than FPS. That's why Guild Wars 2 is a welcome bridge towards a different playstyle and different skill ceilings. It's not even the dodge function in GW2 that raises the bar, it's the fact that you can miss attacks, and waste resources, if you are not positioned properly at all times. Far from perfect, but a step in the way of more active and unpredictable kinds of combat (see rk47 post right above this...).

I'll say it again, all mechanics (hotbar tab targeted, targetless, pure action, RTS, FPS) require skill, and they certainly are all cool for different people. I am just saying that some games require such a constant and free-hand/free-form amount of player input that the room for mistakes or for sheer levels of technique is insanely high, as opposed to games where you mostly have a limited amount of switches and you just have to make sure to flip them in the required order and timing. Still skill, but the skill ceiling is lower.

So when we talk about PvE in MMORPGs, and just PvE because PvP is a different story, some of us would love for the skill ceiling to be raised a bit, especially in solo playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 03:26:35 AM

It's actually mostly from Yahtzee.

It's just a difference between twitch skill and tactical skill. One of them is more adrenal and one of them generally slower moving and more thought out, especially because you are supposed to integrate with others.

We'll see both, there's lots of MMOFPS on the way, but I think most of them will be terrible because a lot of attributes that make a good shooter don't gain from an MMO environment. And much of what makes an MMO interest, like co-operating, complex strategies and character synergies doesn't gain much from twitch. Indeed it tends to make execution really random, lag dependent and annoying. Which has been proven many times when they've had extremely gamey mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 06:27:00 AM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button.

You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy, before you can push that one on/off (fire/nonfire) button. The skill is actually trying to make sure the crosshair is on that one pixel that is the enemy instead of on any of the other million ones on screen. While moving.

In both games you push one or a few more digital (so, just on and off) button to hit and perform, but in FPSs your mouse hand has to fight every single millisecond not to be in the wrong part of the screen whereas 99.9% of it is the wrong part of the screen. And this is while you and your enemies are moving and you probably are too.

That concept stays true for games like Dark Souls (more) and Tera (less) too, although to a much much lower degree than FPS. That's why Guild Wars 2 is a welcome bridge towards a different playstyle and different skill ceilings. It's not even the dodge function in GW2 that raises the bar, it's the fact that you can miss attacks, and waste resources, if you are not positioned properly at all times. Far from perfect, but a step in the way of more active and unpredictable kinds of combat (see rk47 post right above this...).

I'll say it again, all mechanics (hotbar tab targeted, targetless, pure action, RTS, FPS) require skill, and they certainly are all cool for different people. I am just saying that some games require such a constant and free-hand/free-form amount of player input that the room for mistakes or for sheer levels of technique is insanely high, as opposed to games where you mostly have a limited amount of switches and you just have to make sure to flip them in the required order and timing. Still skill, but the skill ceiling is lower.

So when we talk about PvE in MMORPGs, and just PvE because PvP is a different story, some of us would love for the skill ceiling to be raised a bit, especially in solo playing.


It boils down to this, when you see Dodge, Miss, Parry, Block, Hit in your combat log, is it a formula that predicted whether or not you dodged/parry etc?  Or was it player input?

That's the basic argument. No one is saying there aren't some super hard fuck raid encounters in games that require massive intense concentration from 20 people.  Traditionally, a very small percentage of the game actually deals with that kind of gameplay.  Like Margalis said, we're talking about core mechanics.  In Dark Souls/Tera it's part of gameplay every section, in WOW the action stuff has to be scripted in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 28, 2012, 06:40:21 AM
Also I would point out that FPS is a genre I don't particular like and the idea of an FPS MMO doesn't appeal to me all that much. Twitch does not mean first person shooter, nor does more combat depth even mean twitch. I just want to find the activity I spend most of my time doing engaging.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 06:44:15 AM
Also I would point out that FPS is a genre I don't particular like and the idea of an FPS MMO doesn't appeal to me all that much. Twitch does not mean first person shooter, nor does more combat depth even mean twitch. I just want to find the activity I spend most of my time doing engaging.

Exactly, I'm not an FPS fan much at all.  I'll probably buy one every 3-4 years (I think the last two I bought was CoD2 and BF3?).

But the key point quoted above is bolded.  In some games I find the action of killing 10-15 bears fun because the action of killing is enjoyable.  In WOW the act of killing 10-15 bears is boring as shit, but you do it because you get the payday at the end.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 06:49:46 AM

Nah, you kill the same mob with the same tactics for a hundred hours it gets boring in either. See borderlands for proof of that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 06:53:56 AM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 28, 2012, 07:15:22 AM
And therein lies the crux of everyone's bitch.

Put in all the things you guys think you want, you'll still complain because you never grok that you've just done it for a hundred hours prior to that point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 28, 2012, 07:21:45 AM
That is a big part of why MMOGs ideally need some worldy elements, be they crafting, resource gathering, auction houses, whatever. You need something for players to divert into while still existing in the game's social structure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 28, 2012, 09:04:23 AM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.
Then what's the point of an MMO focusing heavily on a better combat system if the novelty will have worn off before you hit max level?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 10:52:15 AM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.
Then what's the point of an MMO focusing heavily on a better combat system if the novelty will have worn off before you hit max level?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

While having a more engaging combat system adds more entertainment for me, you still have to have a fucking game built around it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 28, 2012, 01:03:56 PM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on.

Sheesh let's hope not. Such a divisive design is insane. The devs realized this too late and are now scrambling trying to figure out a solution that doesn't fracture their user base even worse than it currently is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 28, 2012, 01:16:54 PM
The mistake there was making personal difficulty segment you from other players.  Or playing with others prevent you from advancing.  Either way.  The fractals themselves are really fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 28, 2012, 01:31:52 PM
FWIW I'm completely ok with running low-level fractals even if/when I get to level 30 or whatever the leet doods are going for (just as I was ok with running low-level task forces on my max-level incarnate defender in COH instead of the incarnate taskforces). I'm pretty sure this is an anomaly when compared to random_diku_player_01, though.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 28, 2012, 01:37:04 PM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on.

Sheesh let's hope not. Such a divisive design is insane. The devs realized this too late and are now scrambling trying to figure out a solution that doesn't fracture their user base even worse than it currently is.


The difficulty level should be more up to the players, not just according to the lowest one in the group. What I meant was that by ever-increasing difficulty you create (the illusion of) more content with relatively little work and somrthing that will probably challenge even the most hardcore players (while giving the highest difficulty level achieved as something to brag about)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 28, 2012, 01:40:40 PM
I want to make a distinction between base gameplay mechanics and individual boss gimmicks. Flying around like in Starfox, dodging bouncing balls, etc, are not base game mechanics in WoW, they are boss gimmicks. (I'm using gimmicks in the non-pejorative sense) It's cool that there is a boss where you have to dodge left or right 5 times in a row I guess, but dodging attacks like that matters in what percentage of WoW encounters? 0.01%? In a game where dodging is part of the core combat system you can dodge a variety of attacks from a variety of enemies at almost any time - not that there is one specific enemy that has what is a basically a QTE built into it.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. All the fights Zetor detailed were loads of fun, but they represent a very small amount of the content in WoW (or any MMO). I agree that the raid content in WoW still offers enough refreshing mechanics to make up for base gameplay that has gotten stale, but how does that help you if you aren't raiding? SWTOR and Rift may have awesome raid content, but the only thing 99.9% of players are going to experience is the boring game that comes before that. The good part of the game that doesn't put you to sleep can't come after 50-90 levels and hundreds of hours of boring static combat if this genre wants to grow rather than decline.

Creating a combat system that is fun and refreshing from level 1 is the next logical step, not adding distractions to leveling content (similar to raiding) that attempt to make you forgot how boring what you are doing actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 01:42:35 PM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.  Hell, I Might still play 1.6 if I hadn't had a gaming hiatus for a few years at its height and only come back to gaming after source was out.  If you include source and now GO, I've been playing Counter Strike for literally over a decade and I've never grown "bored" of it.  I play other games sure, for the sake of variety, but it is always installed, and more or less regularly played for me.  Same thing with Starcraft / Starcraft 2.  If you include TFC/TF2 in the mix, it is also another one with thousands of hours (and if TF2 hasn't gone looney tunes with the weapons, I'd probably still be playing it regularly).  It just plain isn't so that games MUST get boring.  They get boring when they are only fun for their content, but not their mechanics - which is what this whole discussion is about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 28, 2012, 01:51:14 PM


You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy,


I suppose that would be a problem, if you were a fucking spastic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.  Hell, I Might still play 1.6 if I hadn't had a gaming hiatus for a few years at its height and only come back to gaming after source was out.  If you include source and now GO, I've been playing Counter Strike for literally over a decade and I've never grown "bored" of it.  I play other games sure, for the sake of variety, but it is always installed, and more or less regularly played for me.  Same thing with Starcraft / Starcraft 2.  If you include TFC/TF2 in the mix, it is also another one with thousands of hours (and if TF2 hasn't gone looney tunes with the weapons, I'd probably still be playing it regularly).  It just plain isn't so that games MUST get boring.  They get boring when they are only fun for their content, but not their mechanics - which is what this whole discussion is about.

 :uhrr:

Right, so you missed the whole point.

Hint: I'm not saying playing a game for hundreds of hours automatically gets boring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 28, 2012, 02:31:37 PM

Nah, you kill the same mob with the same tactics for a hundred hours it gets boring in either. See borderlands for proof of that.

It's possible Borderlands is actually just a bland game, and that the combat system can't save it from eventually becoming boring. I don't think anyone here has been arguing that a good combat system automatically makes a good game, though it's certainly a part of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 02:53:06 PM

Perhaps we can think of other twitchy MMO's where that doesn't save them. How's Firefall Red 5 going?

I mean is dodge in GW2 actually "fun"? Not particularly to my mind. It just means I'm expected to spot what are often extremely ambiguous "you should dodge now" animations.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.

PvP works somewhat differently because the other players add a lot of variation and complexity. Plus the rounds are generally short so you get the satisfaction of "you ownzored!" to keep you motivated. It's also partly why planetside is ultimately unsatisfying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 03:51:58 PM

PvP works somewhat differently because the other players add a lot of variation and complexity. Plus the rounds are generally short so you get the satisfaction of "you ownzored!" to keep you motivated. It's also partly why planetside is ultimately unsatisfying.

True, but AI is always getting better.  I cited Darkfall a few pages back - the monsters in that game act in much more interesting ways than your typical MMORPG AI. Even the ones who do nothing more than swing an axe will run around a bit, go get friends to help, etc.  That has more interesting combat as well, although as I mentioned in my other post, it is a bit buggy/wonky at times, at least when I was playing it.  I'm not saying Darkfall is the perfect model for MMORPG combat, but it strikes me as an obvious example in which PvE content was a lot more interesting due to both the combat mechanics and the AI which made things more unpredictable.  These concepts could certainly be improved upon and used in other games. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
To you interesting, to me incredibly annoying and tedious to solo because they kite all over the place and share aggro while still having the typical NPC large health pools. Not that I played it for long.

Since a lot of the pleasure in MMO's is in refining execution some number of people will not find that an improvement. Though it made sense in Darkfall because the PvE was terrible and meant to be training for PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 05:50:46 PM
To you interesting, to me incredibly annoying and tedious to solo because they kite all over the place and share aggro while still having the typical NPC large health pools. Not that I played it for long.

Since a lot of the pleasure in MMO's is in refining execution some number of people will not find that an improvement. Though it made sense in Darkfall because the PvE was terrible and meant to be training for PvP.


Well, I'm not saying it was perfect, I am just saying that there is some precedent for AI that works differently and that there is nothing about the genre that means the AI has to work the way it conventionally does. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 09:00:40 PM

Perhaps we can think of other twitchy MMO's where that doesn't save them.

There haven't been any good ones.  TERA was a terrible game but it's combat made the game actually fun to play and kept me interested far longer than the game should have.  All it did though was show me that I could use some arcade action in my MMOs.

edit to add:

Quote

I mean is dodge in GW2 actually "fun"? Not particularly to my mind. It just means I'm expected to spot what are often extremely ambiguous "you should dodge now" animations.

Yes it is fun.  When I went back to play the Rift expansion I kept hitting my dodge button.  Just like any other arcade/action game.  You dodge to avoid an attack.  But you're getting too meta and picking one aspect and thinking that's the whole thing.  It's simply not just "dodge" its a culmination of things.

In GW2:
I can dodge and get out of the way.
I can swing a weapon without a target and do damage.
I can turn my character slightly and miss with an attack. (sometimes)
If someone runs in front of me they might get hit by my attack instead of my target.

Those are just a few things. and GW2's system is only a hybrid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 28, 2012, 11:51:39 PM
From what I played of Tera it's a pretty terrible game outside of combat. Not really fair to point at a game that does nearly everything poorly as proof that the one thing it does well is a problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 06:50:59 AM
From what I played of Tera it's a pretty terrible game outside of combat. Not really fair to point at a game that does nearly everything poorly as proof that the one thing it does well is a problem.

I don't understand.  I'm just pointing out that the combat in TERA is what kept me playing the game after the first 5 minutes of trying it.  What that says to me is that if a studio took the twitch combat of TERA and built an actual decent game around it, then it would be awesome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 29, 2012, 07:06:59 AM
Looks to me like you two (we three) agree.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 07:15:41 AM
That's what I thought.

Anyway, I just want my space twitch shooter and I can quit being an elf or a dwarf.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 29, 2012, 07:19:26 AM
Planetside, TR, Hellgate, global agenda, MWO and planetside 2?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 29, 2012, 07:30:36 AM
Planetside 2 does plenty of things right when it comes to twitching the MMO space. But not everyone is into pure PvPing. Same for Planetside 1.
Tabula Rasa was horrible and not available anymore because of that, like Auto Assault, and Hellgate London belongs in the other forum like Diablo 3.

Global Agenda is the only title that makes sense mentioning when it comes to twitch sci-fi MMO. Too bad it was a worse MMO than Tera on all accounts, but it's a start and definitely something I'd love to see someone improve over. Global Agenda 2 might be really worth checking, if they don't mess it up too much with the money grab of RMT, but it needs lots of help in the PvE department, and possibly less instanced content, in order to even get close to what some of us are wishing for.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 07:39:44 AM
Planetside, TR, Hellgate, global agenda, MWO and planetside 2?

I'm not a huge FPS kinda guy like I said, but PS is a great game to a lot of people.  I never really played so I can't comment.  TR was interesting for a limited time but it was broken.  Hellgate I never bothered with, but it wasn't really an MMO.  I had a lot of fun with Global Agenda for a short period of time.  Then I got bored. 

I want a persistent world and some PVE in my games.  Of that list only TR had that.  I actually enjoyed that game, but I never got really deep into it to see the fail personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 29, 2012, 10:25:49 AM
How was hellgate not an mmo if guild wars is?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 10:30:51 AM
I don't consider GW1 an MMO in the same fashion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 29, 2012, 05:12:07 PM
Looks to me like you two (we three) agree.

That's no excuse to stop arguing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 01:08:56 PM
But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction.

Added in 5.0. (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=115073)

Of course, if the operative words here are simply leading and target prediction, then Iron Grenades (http://www.wowhead.com/item=4390#created-by-spell).

They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else.

Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.

Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 30, 2012, 03:34:28 PM
Now that's just an ignorant post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 08:11:30 PM
Would you prefer it in bullet points?

Almost everything takes skill. The question is what kind of skill, what range of skill, is that skill an interesting and worthwhile thing to test, etc.

Sure, you can make "don't stand in the fire" REALLY hard if the fire is big and spawns really fast, and thus beating that encounter requires more skill of some sort, but that doesn't make it particular interesting or strategic.

An FPS has a lot of different ways for a game to introduce skill tests and strategy. You don't just put a crosshair over a guy and shoot them. You move, often with a physics based movement system. You jump around. You use terrain in a variety of ways. You use strategies that take advantage of sight lines. The game may have active dodging or an Unreal style teleporter or whatever. And you can also not stand in fire and manage ammo and keep track of your position and that of the enemy.


In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low. Players can move so you can make them move out of fire. They can use abilities so you can make them use the right abilities at the right time. But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction. They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else. Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

You can tune numbers so that an encounter takes more skill via a smaller margin for error but that's not the same as making a game interesting. There's nothing interesting about Battletoads or those crazy Mario romhacks, even though they are hard as hell.

The number of ways a WoW encounter can test skill is low because the number of meaningful things players can do in combat is low. By the way this is the exact reason Arkham City boss fights are so terrible. Against a non-human-sized single enemy there's just not many ways you can meaningfully interact.

  • More dumb fire abilities were added in 5.0. (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=115073)  Of course, if the operative words here are simply leading and target prediction, then Iron Grenades (http://www.wowhead.com/item=4390#created-by-spell).
  • Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI - because movement isn't part of the base gameplay.

Still utterly fucking wrong, fancy that.  It's almost as if an argument built wholly on counter-factual assertions will not ever be right no matter what hangups you have about a fuckwit named Bruce who, I might add, would quote sentence fragments and omit large sections of a paragraph pursuant to the argument the person was making because he was an utter cock.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 30, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
(http://global3.memecdn.com/One-does-not-simply-take-an-arrow-to-the-knee_o_108897.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 30, 2012, 08:39:04 PM
Sheepherder, we just have irreconcilably different definition of what constitutes movement being an part of the "base gameplay."  The video you linked is literally a warrior doing a LoS pull.  If that is interesting/engaging to you, that pretty much explains why we will never agree on what constitutes interesting and engaging combat/movement.

Here are some examples from my point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAmL4tjFzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcYpuNNqL18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_Dx8xWXis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lrSVumR7l8

TERA, which has been cited a few times as one of the better MMO attempts has a bit more than average: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEWmtcnXF_w

I mean, pick whichever one you happen to like, any of them are obviously more interesting than most MMO combat/movement.  It isn't than MMOs have 0 redeeming features, it is that at this point I've played that side of them out and I really need actual engaging session to session gameplay to keep me interested.  Planetside 2 is the only MMO in a while which has actually left me wanting to log in just for the sheer enjoyment of playing it recently.  I'd like to see some more traditional fantasy MMOs manage to draw me in the same way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 09:15:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI

This is a video of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Bravo.

Every time you guys post a video of how strategically advanced WOW is you are making my argument for me. So far we have a video of bad AI pathing being abused and a video of a boss fight that is quite literally "move out of the fire." What in this video is supposed to be interesting? The guy using "leap" (AKA another "move faster" ability)? What about AI getting stuck on a corner is impressive?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 09:32:50 PM
Added in 5.0.

Wow, one ability that requires targeting, added recently! Well you totally just disproved my point, I guess aiming is super important in WoW! Let me guess, if you think hard enough you'll come up with a whole second ability as well! I guess I was wrong when I said "abilities don't require aiming", I should have said "nearly all abilities don't require aiming." Got me!

Quote
They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else.
Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.

Move faster is pretty exciting stuff!

All of these abilities, though they are called stuff like "roll" and "dash" and "sprint" etc, all seem to be functionally equivalent and just a movement speed boost. They don't allow you to actually dodge much if anything (other than pools of fire lol, it all comes back to that), and no abilities are aimed (oh sorry, one ability in the game requires targeting, my bad!) so...who cares?

You can run away from an encounter and joust in PVP. Is that it? (And jousting is stupid) Are we really going to pretend that running faster is super different from running normally? I guess you would argue that "basic run and jump" doesn't describe any game with analog speed control since you can not only run but run faster and slower as well.

Your standards are incredibly low.

A spell that increments your base movement rate is complex movement, kiting AI until it gets stuck on a corner because the pathfinding doesn't do any sort of avoidance or grouping is complex positioning and moving out of some fire is the height of strategic gameplay. What?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 09:38:39 PM
This is a video of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Bravo.
A spell that increments your base movement rate is complex movement, kiting AI until it gets stuck on a corner because the pathfinding doesn't do any sort of avoidance or grouping is complex positioning and moving out of some fire is the height of strategic gameplay. It's like WoW and Peggle are the only two games you've ever played.

They're casters, they go around the corner, see the player, and start casting.  A stuck mob in WoW becomes unhittable, regenerates it's health, and drops aggro after a few seconds.

Bravo.

Sheepherder, we just have irreconcilably different definition of what constitutes movement being an part of the "base gameplay."  The video you linked is literally a warrior doing a LoS pull.  If that is interesting/engaging to you, that pretty much explains why we will never agree on what constitutes interesting and engaging combat/movement.

I could probably find some more exceptional examples, but he did ask for base gameplay, and that's pretty much the first example that comes to mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 30, 2012, 09:45:33 PM


I could probably find some more exceptional examples, but he did ask for base gameplay, and that's pretty much the first example that comes to mind.

That's just the thing, we did want base gameplay, because that is what matters most of the time.  Finding exceptional examples isn't the point here.  The point is, the fundamentals of WoW-like combat just aren't very interesting to a lot of us anymore to the point where that combat system is enough for me to simply not care about a new MMORPG coming out if it uses it.  There are countless other games/genres which have engaging combat all the time, and although "Action oriented" is a buzz word on MMO boxes these days, exceedingly few have done much at all to break the mold.

If you like WoW combat for what it is, FINE, I'm glad you enjoy the game, but don't try to make it out to be something it's not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 09:59:10 PM
They're casters, they go around the corner, see the player, and start casting.  A stuck mob in WoW becomes unhittable, regenerates it's health, and drops aggro after a few seconds.

And? Who cares?

Why is this supposedly interesting, novel or impressive in any way? You can exploit AI behavior and pathfinding in WoW....ok...?

I don't understand what this video is supposed to illustrate. I said movement wasn't important and you linked to a video of a guy running around a corner to abuse AI and sucky pathfinding. What am I missing?

Should I link to a video of Asheron's Call 2 where a guy gets AI stuck on walls he creates? At least there the ability to create arbitrary walls in the environment is at least somewhat interesting.

Heres a video of a FFXI BCNM fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxE2dbQ_OPM

It requires kiting, facing the right direction, letting an enemy start to cast then running out of range/sight, etc. I guess that proves...something. It seems like you'd have to argue that in this fight movement and positioning are important and the fight is mechanically interesting. Whereas I'd argue that although it's more interesting than fighting a standard enemy it's still nothing to write home about.

It's not like I've never played any video game before and getting AI stuck on a corner or in casting animation is an impressive strategy...it takes a little more than that to excite me. And again, fights like these are not the norm. In most fights that aren't raid bosses or BCNMs or whatever you stand there, eat your sandwich and win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 10:10:19 PM
Wow, one ability that requires targeting, added recently! Well you totally just disproved my point, I guess aiming is super important in WoW! Let me guess, if you think hard enough you'll come up with a whole second ability as well! I guess I was wrong when I said "abilities don't require aiming", I should have said "nearly all abilities don't require aiming." Got me!

Well, I assumed you had at one point in time some familiarity with the game, and so I wouldn't have to enumerate my way through a list of abilities which regularly benefit from some form of timing or aim, like the original Blizzard and it's delayed chill proc, or the original cast Shadowflame, or Cone of Cold for that matter.  You know, basic, early game "I had a level 20 rogue back in 2005 and gave up because this game was bullshit and this asshole mage kept kiting me" sorts of things.  Turns out: nope!  You have absofuckinglutely no idea what you're talking about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 10:19:47 PM
Well, I assumed you had at one point in time some familiarity with the game, and so I wouldn't have to enumerate my way through a list of abilities which regularly benefit from some form of timing or aim, like the original Blizzard and it's delayed chill proc, or the original cast Shadowflame, or Cone of Cold for that matter.  You know, basic, early game "I had a level 20 rogue and gave up because this game was bullshit" sorts of things.  Turns out: nope!  You have absofuckinglutely no idea what you're talking about.

Since when are we debating whether or not you have to time abilities in an MMO? I specifically said leading targets and movement prediction.

"Some form of timing or aim" is not what we're talking about, we're talking about actual aiming. Yes, MMOs have conal spells and spherical spells...yay. Group a bunch of enemies in front of you then use your cone effect - strategy! Try to get enemies in range before using a spherical AOE attack!

Again I think your standards are just incredibly low. Yes, Cone of Cold benefits from the player not being completely brain dead and casting it facing backwards. If you want to consider that mechanical complexity and "aiming" go ahead I guess? In a game where most enemies do very little to avoid attacks you have to correctly aim a 90 degree arc to hit them...Cone of Cold is also instant cast no? So there is no movement prediction.

I'm sorry but "not facing backwards" is not aiming to me, at least not in a way that really matters.

Show me the "aiming" in the video you linked to. If aiming is important to base combat it should appear in that video no?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 10:36:41 PM
I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree.

So far I've seen a video of a "don't stand in the fire" boss fight and a video of exploiting pathing. If you guys are happy with that in an MMO, if to you that is strategic, engaging, mechanically deep combat that's cool I guess.

I would like something more. Some people are happy with Dynasty Warriors. Some people aren't. To me aiming is not "face the right general direction", dynamic movement is not "you can also move faster", positioning is not "try to get the enemies to form a blob." I've played a lot of different kinds of game with a lot of different kinds of combat, from FPS to 3rd person action to turn-based strategy, and to me most MMO combat is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of being engaging. Combat in MMOs, especially combat against normal enemies, is usually trivial and rote from both a strategic and mechanical viewpoint.

Edit: And again, I'm not asking that WoW become a different game. I'm asking that other games make a break from WoW - which probably makes sense from a business standpoint as a well as a game design one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 10:42:59 PM
So let's talk (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=88747), very specifically (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113724), about movement prediction (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=77769) then.  Possibly the related area denial as well.  Though I can't link some examples because they are no longer with us.

EDIT: Or not, your call.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 10:45:50 PM
So let's talk (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=88747), very specifically (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113724), about movement prediction (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=77769) then.  Possibly the related area denial as well.  Though I can't link some examples because they are no longer with us.

EDIT: Or not, your call.

In a PVE game where enemies have no real AI is there such a thing as "movement prediction"?

In the video you linked to what exactly was the movement that required prediction? The enemies did what MMO enemies nearly always do and walked in a shortest path up to casting / melee range. The fact that you can place something on the ground that lasts for 10 seconds and activates when enemies walk though doesn't require prediction at all if enemies just move straight towards you. And the timing window is so loose that I don't see how you could screw it up.

If you fire a rocket in Quake even if you know the enemy is going to travel in a straight line you still need to time it within a window of milliseconds. Here you have a 10 second window and a large area to catch enemies moving basically deterministically. How is that not trivial?

Placing an obstacle in front of an enemy moving in a straight line is not movement prediction. Try again?

Here's a video of a game that requires much better timing and at least as much movement prediction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=437Ld_rKM2s


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 11:03:17 PM
I have yet to see a singleplayer game where the AI looks for mines before advancing on the player either.

For that matter, I had some good times with mines in UT2004.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 11:42:13 PM
I have yet to see a singleplayer game where the AI looks for mines before advancing on the player either.

For that matter, I had some good times with mines in UT2004.

Have you played a single-player game where the AI does more than make a beeline directly towards the player? Because such games do exist, believe it or not.

When the enemy moves in a predictable straight line directly towards you and you place a spell that has a long duration and area to intercept them how exactly does that require movement prediction? It's a pretty straightforward question that you apparently have no answer to despite bringing it up as a positive example.

I like how you said "let's talk, very specifically" about this, didn't actually talk about it at all other than pasting links, then when I did talk specifically about it changed the subject to Unreal Tournament. If you have something intelligent to say about movement prediction in WoW say it already. Cause it kind of looks like you don't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 12:05:42 AM
Edit: Eh, Sheepherder gonna sheepherd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 12:17:10 AM
I'm sort of bemused that, since we've now discovered that you do indeed have abilities that incentivize you to predict the movements of AI or players that the issue now is that the AI doesn't dodge them.  Just like when we discovered that you have what amounts to dodging abilities, but they're not creative enough, because they're all a variant on "move faster."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 12:33:43 AM
I'm sort of bemused that, since we've now discovered that you do indeed have abilities that incentive you to predict the movements of AI or players that the issue now is that the AI doesn't dodge them.  Just like when we discovered that you have what amounts to dodging abilities, but they're not creative enough, because they're all a variant on "move faster."

1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."

2. "Dodging" is not the same as "not moving in a completely predictable straight path that requires zero prediction to take advantage of."

3. We didn't discover that you have what "amounts to dodging abilities", as the abilities you mentioned do not dodge, they merely increase movement speed.

I like how you lead off this discussion by implying that I was a cock for selective quoting and answering, then said you would "talk specifically" about a subject, the proceeded to not only not talk specifically about it but dodge extremely obvious and straightforward questions because you can't answer them without making yourself look foolish.

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer straightforward questions means you've conceded the argument. This is not 1993 on Usenet when these moronic internet debating tactics took people by surprise and worked.

I'm still waiting for you talk "very specifically" about movement prediction in WoW, because despite your vow to do that you've said nothing intelligent about it at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFG0GL8YrC8&feature=fvst

This is the first result on youtube for "let's play World of Warcraft." Wow, the combat is so intense and dynamic! (Skip to 5 minutes in) So much positioning, movement prediction, aiming, etc. Note that this is only slightly shittier than the video you linked to which was supposed to be an example of advanced tactics in WoW and consisted of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Is this video fake? It's fake right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 01:50:11 AM
1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."

Or, possibly, sticking it on the ground where you expect person/mob to be at some unspecified point in the future due to easily predictable pathfinding/player behaviour; fight scripting; or coordination with another player over how you're going to move a mob.  Obvious answer is obvious.

2. "Dodging" is not the same as "not moving in a completely predictable straight path that requires zero prediction to take advantage of."

First: grammar snake attack.  If you can't see it, look harder.

There are a select few mobs in the game that actually toss in random movements, (usually via special ability) that number appears to be increasing.  They're generally more annoying than effective, because if it isn't in melee range it's either ranged and thus usually stationary or not doing damage to you, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Scripting a mob to occasionally jump in a random direction just gives my warrior an extra opportunity to charge.

3. We didn't discover that you have what "amounts to dodging abilities", as the abilities you mentioned do not dodge, they merely increase movement speed.

As is double tapping a direction in Unreal Tournament.  Functionally, the difference is that you have to outrange/line of sight some attacks before it fires rather than interrupting it in flight, while others you can dodge in progress, (there's usually one of these per class) and against players you can dodge behind the player to interrupt the attack if they aren't quick to mouselook around.

Quote
I like how you lead off this discussion by implying that I was a cock for selective quoting and answering

Is your name Bruce?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 01, 2012, 02:47:42 AM

...what is this, I have no idea.

I wouldn't worry about it. The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation. WoW is from an olden time when games could be measured and tactical, and EQ would probably blow their minds if their "bored, I sleep now" circuits didn't cut in.

Tera is basically the start of it, but I would expect that trend to continue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 03:49:39 AM
1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."
Or, possibly, sticking it on the ground where you expect person/mob to be at some unspecified point in the future due to easily predictable pathfinding/player behaviour

So movement prediction in WoW is trivial. Got it.

This was my original statement that you took issue with:

Quote
But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction.

So your argument is that you can test movement prediction  - but the test is trivially easy to pass. Which is basically a restatement of my argument. A gameplay test that the player can't fail is not meaningful and does not add any systemic depth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 01, 2012, 04:56:00 AM
I would be pretty happy for the time being if they implemented Vindictus combat in a real, open world MMORPG. This is pretty much what Tera is trying to do, and what some of us would like. No amount of gimmicky bomb-throwing is gonna make WoW and the auto-attack brigade into one of those games. Are the EQ/WoW-likes good games with their own kind of skill involved? Sure. Are they satisfying to those who are looking for more twitch in their MMORPGs? No, and I don't even understand why someone wants WoW to fit in that category so bad.

Please drop it. We probably all enjoyed EQ/WoW/Rift at some point. But these are not the games we are talking about now and wishing for in the future. If you don't get it, I can only think that for some weird doctrinaire or emotional reasons you are taking the limits and the obsolescence of WoW too personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 06:57:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFG0GL8YrC8&feature=fvst

This is the first result on youtube for "let's play World of Warcraft." Wow, the combat is so intense and dynamic! (Skip to 5 minutes in) So much positioning, movement prediction, aiming, etc. Note that this is only slightly shittier than the video you linked to which was supposed to be an example of advanced tactics in WoW and consisted of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Is this video fake? It's fake right?

By any chance did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 01, 2012, 07:18:18 AM
This is a ridiculous argument. You're both drawing down the IQ of the board with this nonsense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 01, 2012, 07:48:19 AM

...what is this, I have no idea.

I wouldn't worry about it. The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation. WoW is from an olden time when games could be measured and tactical, and EQ would probably blow their minds if their "bored, I sleep now" circuits didn't cut in.


It has nothing to do with measured and tactical.   I played World War 2 Online for a long time.  It was measured, tactical, slow as hell, and absolutely intense and engaging.  Hell, I raided in WoW for years in a fairly high end guild (at least within the context of the server I played on, we weren't contending for world firsts or anything, but we were contending for server firsts).  The combat was NEVER measured and tactical.   It was often coordinated, but it wasn't as if we needed brilliant strategists to make important on the fly tactical decisions 95% of the time.  Everyone had a pre-set job, and you had to execute it.  Perhaps newer boss fights are more dynamic (Cataclysm raiding and onward, I have no experience), but it isn't like WoW raiding is somehow a shining light of strategic and tactical combat and people like me are arguing that we just wish we could hit buttons more often.  I mean come on.

And even when they manage to put together interesting fights, of which there were many actually, it was a result of them designing particular fights to be interesting, not interesting combat which simply arose from great fundamental combat mechanics.  That video Margalis linked of a low level rogue Let's Play is the fundamental combat of WoW and WoW-alikes in my opinion - particularly for someone who plays the game solo most of the time.   THAT is the experience that needs to change to get MMORPGs to interest me again.  Raids/Group scripted fights can and always will have the potential to be interesting depending on their specific mechanics, but that isn't evidence that the fundamentals are good.

I'm not saying current MMO combat needs to be obliterated and that no future MMOs should have it.  It does have an audience.  But for ME to care about this genre again, it will need to produce a more interesting set of combat mechanics that have me engaged. 



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 09:24:33 AM
This is a ridiculous argument. You're both drawing down the IQ of the board with this nonsense.

It is, that was going to be my last comment on the topic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 09:28:51 PM
It is, that was going to be my last comment on the topic.

Edit: Stop posting then. Bye.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 02, 2012, 08:27:39 AM
Saying that MMO combat "must" evolve into twitchy real-time target-leading combat is like saying chess "must" evolve into Hungry Hungry Hippos. I really hope both have a place in the future- there will always be a cohort that simply isn't good at twitch (or semi-twitch) combat. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 02, 2012, 04:29:38 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 02, 2012, 04:36:14 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.

I keep coming back to EQ2, CoX, GW as the sort of approach devs should be taking. Not necessarily for the specific mechanics, but for the fact they actually tried to move shit forward.

They have to see prior MMOGs as a platform to build on, not as the definition of the limits of player expectation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 03, 2012, 07:29:18 AM
It doesn't have to evolve into a twitchier game set, but I would like it to.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 03, 2012, 08:51:21 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.

This. The world only needs one WoW. Or maybe an eventual sequel/refresh from Blizzard. Every WoW clone has underperformed.

MMOs are largely about fostering a large community where community size itself becomes a strength of the game. The market can't support 10 games that are all basically the same. One will get the players and snowball, the rest will wither and die.

The fact that a Star Wars WoW-clone still cratered should be the final nail in the coffin to the "let's clone WoW!" thinking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 03, 2012, 10:50:32 PM
Goddamn, I love the ferocity of WoW bashing and defense.

(http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/orson_welles_clap.gif)

Well done, chaps. Keep it up. The future of MMO is bright indeed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 03, 2012, 11:27:01 PM
One thing people tend to overlook about wow subs is that the vast majority of them are in Asia.

SWTOR and others get seen as a failure at a million western subs but had unrealistic expectations to start with when wow only built 2 million western subs over years.

Asia seems like a marketing afterthought in most games, yet that is where the subs are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on December 04, 2012, 12:49:21 AM
One thing people tend to overlook about wow subs is that the vast majority of them are in Asia.

SWTOR and others get seen as a failure at a million western subs but had unrealistic expectations to start with when wow only built 2 million western subs over years.

Asia seems like a marketing afterthought in most games, yet that is where the subs are.

More like 5+ million WoW subs in the west, not 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 04, 2012, 08:07:25 AM
I think it peaked at 6.5m, but I can't be assed to look for a source.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 04:21:54 AM
Ok, I have something (I think) new for you all. It's called Forge (http://store.steampowered.com/app/223390/), it's a little indie product that just got greenlit on Steam after failing to make their Kickstarter goal. It's a PvP arena-only game, pretty much a MMORPG without the world and without PvE, with a combat system that is definitely hotbar-based but absolutely focused on action, positioning and reflexes (active block, jumping on walls, aiming, no auto attack). Granted, since it's PvP only we don't know how dumb or exciting could it be in a PvE context, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action, I think it shows a bit better the direction MMO combat might easily evolve into at this point.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YgmayUxbH0U), and here's the website (http://www.playforgewar.com/).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on December 05, 2012, 04:34:24 AM
Hmm, I remember Forge, it was started by some WOW arena gladiators / enthusiasts iirc.

I wonder what they can provide that (f'rex) Bloodline Champions doesn't, though...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 05:09:06 AM
My memory could be bad here, but isn't Bloodline Champions point-and-click? If the answer is yes that makes all the difference in the world, since we are talking about viable forms of combat for future MMORPGs, not just arena pvp games, and I showed Forge just because the combat is clearly inspired by the WoW-formula but with twitch added. Bloodline Champions is inspired by Warcraft/MOBAs.

(EDIT: If anything, Forge is the new attempt at what that other game tried to do a few years ago but failed horribly. Can't remember the name, help me here. Low budget, arena pvp only. Risk? Rift? Rage? Rank? Dammit, I'm getting worse...)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2012, 05:13:28 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on December 05, 2012, 05:29:23 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!
Fury, IIRC. And yes, both games seem heavy into the arena-based e-sport thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 05:34:09 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!

I play Forge. I know what I am talking about. Labels and press names don't mean anything. Especially in a time where everyone is trying to cater to the biggest audience possible. This game is trying to appeal to those pvp-oriented MMORPG players who could use a less miserable combat. I am not surprised, as Zetor says, that this game is being made by some ex-WoW player.

The combat is, to put it simple, WoW (or any other hotbar/cooldown based MMORPG) with lots more twitch. Or simply a faster Tera, which is by no means a shooter and just an evolution of the hotbar formula as everyone kind of agreed on in the last ten pages or so. Hell, even your main spammable free attack here has a hotbar icon and 1 second Global Cooldown. Shooter much?

Thanks for trying, Merusk.


Fake Edit: Fury! Thanks, Zetor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on December 05, 2012, 06:06:01 AM
I still think that a game like Fury and this does actually have a chance at success, but it requires a *lot* design that has to be extremely well thought out.  That involves not punching newbies in the dick so they actually can understand what's going on in a way that and also providing some form of attachment for players to make them actually want to log in and play.  It also has to make it so a bad game or idiots on your team doesn't make it an extremely boring experience.

Haven't played forge yet (although I think I signed up for a key a long time ago) but judging from the video, while the video is flashy and all I really think it violates my first point (and this was one huge issue I kept bringing up at fury design meetings).  If the game is too fast paced it's too hard to figure out why the hell you just died or what you could have done in that situation better.  The fact that it brags that it's "the fastest combat out there" makes me apprehensive of it being newbie friendly.

Of course, the problem with slower paced games is you get into instances like GW1 guild vs guild where you have 30 minute matches of attrition.

Fast paced works well with FPS because it's pretty simple, if you died it's because you were somewhere you shouldn't have and got shot.  That's not a game with a hotbar ability based game.  Getting a game like this t owork well in the long run is harder than most realize.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2012, 06:46:10 AM


Limiting abilities is the first step.  It makes the game much simpler to balance because you don't have untested combos that internal conversations handwave as "that'll never work" and a few hundred thousand players punching keys proves them wrong in a day.

It also has the advantage of being easier to learn since you don't have to memorize (or develop) a counter for X classes * y abilities.

They appear to have done that where Fury failed.  I'm with you on the pace, though.  Feedback is important if you're going to make it so damn quick.  TF2 does this with replays of your deaths, a game like this needs that with what abilities were hitting you flashing in your face if they're relying on HPs instead of FPS hitzones.
 
And that's where the breakdown is for me.  The method of the kill determination.  Even FPS have hotbars in the way you guys keep hammering on it as "psuh butan do damege1".   If you're wearing-down a HP bar instead of "boom headshot" then yeah, it's more MMO-like combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 05, 2012, 07:06:11 AM
I like to twitch, and limited abilities, but I also prefer something slower paced as well.  I hate having to measure success by my APM.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 07:41:34 AM
Forge at the moment is definitely "too fast" and with not enough feedback on incoming damage. At least, in an fps way, it shows you the direction damage is coming from, but it's definitely not enough.

Then again, I'd like to see this in a PvE situatiion, although mobs' behaviour plays a big part in the amount of twitch you are gonna get out of any given combat system. The two things have to evolve together, or it keeps being pointless outside of PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: El Gallo on December 05, 2012, 07:48:30 PM
The fact that a Star Wars WoW-clone still cratered should be the final nail in the coffin to the "let's clone WoW!" thinking.

SWTOR was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much worse than WoW in almost every respect that I have trouble accepting that conclusion.  If that game had even been in the same universe as WoW in most respects, the addition of companions and increased focus on story would have been a nice iteration of WoW.

It's entirely possible that nobody except Blizzard has the money/talent to do pull it off, but I don't think the market is unwilling to buy it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 05, 2012, 08:14:17 PM
SWTOR was the nail in the coffin after 8 years of let's-clone-WoW thinking, not the first nor only example. As was said earlier, the world only needs one WoW. Like the world only needs one Facebook or one Twitter, until something new comes along because the kids think those three things are only for "adults" (like Starbucks, or iPhones).

And just like all five of those examples, every competitor since 2005 has looked at WoW, identified the one or two things they think they can do better, and pinned the entire hope of their game on outdoing those two things, or at least carving a significant chunk of players away. But they all, to a game, did not hit huge numbers because Blizzard had a holistic set of advantages nobody else could match.

But that was recent Blizzard, not current Blizzard (and not even all the same Blizzard :wink:). WoW is only going to continue to decline, who the heck knows if Titan will ever ship, and even if it does, given how D3 and SC2 went, will Titan truly be something brand new, or just an up'res'd WoW (don't care what they're saying, just care what they'll do).

If MMOs are going to still be The Thing To Do(tm), then I say it's anyone's game right now.

The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation.

If there's a future for "mainstream" MMOs, my guess is it'll evolve off of social networking games. Many are getting there already, just not in the way we're used to doing things in MMOs competitively or cooperatively. There's tens of millions of new gamers these days who don't call themselves gamers but who'll put in as much time and money on Farmville 2 or Cityville 2 as we would on GW2.

At the same time, consoles are having issues. Packaged media is declining and digital is not offsetting it revenue-wise. We'll be seeing steadily leaner games coming that try to appeal to a wider audience than us, who continue to age and bring the "average age of a gamer" with us. That's not sustainable and the industry knows it. Today's kids and "no I'm not a gamer"s are ditching consoles and PCs for tablets and smartphones. They'll play the big annualized titles, maybe.

GW2 is a good example of a current MMO for the short attention span theater crowd. Very mashy :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 06, 2012, 11:51:31 AM
I think a much fairer comparison is Rift, which as far as i know is doing "decent".  Swtor was a single player game hammered into an MMO mold, people finished the game and quit playing like they do with any other game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 06, 2012, 04:29:54 PM
Swtor's single player thing doesn't really apply the way it used too.

The main questing 1-50 line is better production values for the same process in wow, then an archetypal group raiding game starts. You can't solo much past 50.

And the dungeon finder & pvp systems means you can group 1-50 if you want.


The mechanics have always been built for multiplayer. Player abilities suffer from the same over simple player design that we talked about earlier and which you'd never get away with in a single player game.

On the plus side this is the only MMOG I've played where sheer production values can keep me interested for a stretch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: El Gallo on December 06, 2012, 08:23:12 PM
Edit: derail deleted


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2012, 05:01:49 AM
Edit: derail deleted

It's been 8 pages since anyone made a post about ESO. That ship has sailed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 07, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
It would be great if we had anything new to talk about around Elder Scrolls Online. Sadly, even the fluff slowed down again. Which is not an open invitation to Blackwulf to come back and artificially create some out of nothing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2012, 12:54:20 PM
Swtor's single player thing doesn't really apply the way it used too.

The main questing 1-50 line is better production values for the same process in wow, then an archetypal group raiding game starts. You can't solo much past 50.

And the dungeon finder & pvp systems means you can group 1-50 if you want.


The mechanics have always been built for multiplayer. Player abilities suffer from the same over simple player design that we talked about earlier and which you'd never get away with in a single player game.

On the plus side this is the only MMOG I've played where sheer production values can keep me interested for a stretch.

My point was that Rift is the most faithful WoW clone without any obvious crippling issues like SWTORs ending story and it is doing good. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 07, 2012, 02:10:53 PM
I'm not sure we have ever been given enough information about Rift to draw any conclusions about how well it is doing. They had early server merges just like everyone else, they just somehow managed to fool you people by saying they were 'creating trial servers' out of the retired ones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on December 07, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
My point was that Rift is the most faithful WoW clone without any obvious crippling issues like SWTORs ending story and it is doing good.  

I'm not sure I'd say it is doing "good". They are down to 8 NA servers from the 30+ they started with. Rift is, as far as we can tell, financially successful but you have to keep in mind that it had much lower expectations and requirements to be financially successful compared to other MMOs. It cost an estimated 50 million to make compared to the 200+ of SWTORs (iirc both numbers...), and it is competently built so it seems they've had an easier time adding new content to the game compared to their competition.

It's not a positive indication of the health of the genre, it's an indication that Trion had a good business plan and a smooth development process. The genre is still declining.

Rift has recently announced that the game will be going F2P in Korea and they added a working in-game store to the NA/EU version of the game a few patches back. You can draw your own conclusions about how healthy it actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 07, 2012, 06:50:51 PM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 07, 2012, 07:14:09 PM
The reason that so many of the let's-clone-WoW titles have failed is that they have cloned that game badly. And that even in areas where they made an improvement, it was typically more incremental than incredible.

Trion is, afaik, doing very well for itself. Rift apparently stuck to its budget of US$50m in development and apparently made back US$100m in 10 months post-launch (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/19/rift-revenues-reached-100-million-in-2011-trion-secures-new-fu/). They've got other projects in the works, so they aren't going to be completely dependent on one source of revenue. (Is Defiance the way to go? I don't think so, but if Hartsman is involved, anything is possible.)

But I agree that the MMO genre is declining. For a lot of investors, MMOs are WoW, and if in 8 years no-one has come close to matching them, then money should be spent elsewhere. Which is why MOBAs are seeing much more love.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 07, 2012, 07:58:47 PM
We honestly have no idea how well Rift is doing, other than the fact the game hasn't shut down and the company is still in business.

They are privately owned, post no financials, and don't give information on sub numbers. Any attempt to make a judgement on the success of the game is pretty pointless in my mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 08, 2012, 02:17:23 AM
I strongly suspect they went through the same cycle as everyone else. Over a million boxes bought settling down to a few hundred thousand subs.

Only Rift had more sensible expectations than most.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 08, 2012, 04:14:11 AM
And it's just plain and simply, in its genre, one of the two best games around. Too bad that isn't really rewarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on December 08, 2012, 08:58:18 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on December 08, 2012, 09:20:10 AM
I'm not betting on this game being good. I think it has a large chance of sucking. I feel bad for some friends that still play wow, they really don't like wow anymore but are intimidated by other choices in the market. They think this will be the next big thing and are planning a mass exodus if/when it ever releases.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Selby on December 08, 2012, 10:17:20 AM
We honestly have no idea how well Rift is doing, other than the fact the game hasn't shut down and the company is still in business.
My neighbor works for them.  He's been working for them since just after they started.  While he doesn't give any juicy details, the fact that he's still gainfully employed and excited about what he's working on for the next expansion says to me that they as a company are doing fine, even in 2nd place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2012, 11:14:01 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I'm sorry but that's pure bs.  Beating WoW was never their goal, they are a profitable game that has more than made up for its cost already, that's a winner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2012, 12:09:43 PM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I'm sorry but that's pure bs.  Beating WoW was never their goal, they are a profitable game that has more than made up for its cost already, that's a winner.

I believe he meant in terms of conversation and MMO punditry.  If you're not #1 or breathing down their neck, making them sweat, you're not worth discussing.

I still hold the idea that people are intimidated by unique settings. EQ had generic elves and dwarves, WoW had the same.  If we get another generic elf and dwarf fantasy game that takes off, instead of unique environment, I think we'll see what a major portion of the problem is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 08, 2012, 05:12:48 PM
Any idea how Anet is doing? They seem to be doing ok, and I guess we won't know until Q4 financials are posted. But I feel like GW2 doesn't get credit for a number of things because it's assumed to not be doing all that well yet.

Trion was smart but yea, we just don't know. Not that it matters if we know anyway I guess.

As to mouthbreathers who pitch business plans on like-WoW-but, they get what they deserve. A large amount of shipped games are not greenlit that way, though the most vocal/high profile ones generally are. It feels to me more like a perception skew than a real one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 09, 2012, 01:19:14 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I've never understood this shit.

It seems to be unique to MMOs. Because nobody argues that all single player games except shitty console fps are failures. Or that any film that attracts fewer people than titanic is something to be ashamed of. Or that only the most profitable company on the NYSE should stay in business.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 09, 2012, 05:39:50 AM
It seems to me that Rift is relatively successful. There's no shame in being number 2, especially when the number 1 game is an objectively terrible baby game.  :awesome_for_real:

I consider SWTOR a failure because EA said they would feel happy about the investment if it came out to a million subs a year for 10 years and obviously it's not anywhere close to that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 09, 2012, 06:01:05 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I've never understood this shit.

It seems to be unique to MMOs. Because nobody argues that all single player games except shitty console fps are failures. Or that any film that attracts fewer people than titanic is something to be ashamed of. Or that only the most profitable company on the NYSE should stay in business.

It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 09, 2012, 07:08:38 AM
So why do you post on f13?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 09, 2012, 07:56:58 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on December 09, 2012, 07:58:30 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Hipster Neckbeards?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on December 09, 2012, 08:57:50 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Hipster Neckbeards?

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82533/kanyelaugh.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 09, 2012, 04:01:23 PM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

To me it's really just about being on the biggest one that appeals to you the most. Facebook vs Google + is a good example of convergence. But LinkedIn is a good indicator that there's more to social sharing than just Facebook. Just like the Galaxy S3 is showing the world that it's not just iPhone or crap.

Games always have top-X lists. But every genre also has multiple favorites. Rift will never be WoW, but neither are Trion's operating costs the same. CCP, Turbine and SOE are also doing fine. Same can be said on social networking games or smartphone apps.

Are business leaders pitching a new MMO because of Rift? Depends. Do they have experience in the genre? If so, Rift is likely mentioned. If not, then it's all based on "if we can just get 10% of WoW's audience - something - moneyhats", to their eventual disillusionment.

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?
A cross section of veterans who have a lot of history watching industries evolve and converge together.

I don't think we necessarily represent shit of course. We're not a market anyone should target because aside from being relatively few, we can't even agree on what's "best"  :grin:

But I'd rather have a diverse set of veterans with wildly different opinions they'll go all deep on expounding than the one dimensional barking on Twitter, the insular closed communities on Facebook, the temporary official game forums, and the ad support cesspool genre/ratings aggregation sites.

In short, I respect the opinions of people I've known here, in prior places, and a few others, way more than the luminary du jour they throw out on whatever ratings rag or site is popular at the moment.

Not that I tend to agree with everyone of course  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 09, 2012, 11:45:12 PM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Certainly not the biggest social network, which is what I think Eldaec was getting at.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 10, 2012, 12:02:07 AM
But that was recent Blizzard, not current Blizzard (and not even all the same Blizzard :wink:). WoW is only going to continue to decline, who the heck knows if Titan will ever ship, and even if it does, given how D3 and SC2 went, will Titan truly be something brand new, or just an up'res'd WoW (don't care what they're saying, just care what they'll do).

WoW's decline isn't inevitable.  Blizzard is just working really hard at it, and has been since Cataclysm launched.

Daily quests as a form of progression always were a stupid idea, and now they're a huge chunk of the endgame.  A lot of classes have some rather questionable design decisions centered around random procs.  Fel Sacrifice is back.  Crowd control versus DoTs and AoEs was going to get fixed back in 3.0, and then it didn't, and still hasn't.  Elemental shamans got a really nifty glyph for Lightning Bolt that allowed it to be cast while moving and I imagine was meant to be a trial balloon, it appears to be gone now, what remains are mostly crippled variants of the same.  Stags all the way down made it into a live build. (http://youtu.be/H-hNYKyF8FA)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 10, 2012, 11:40:15 AM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

Does this even make sense at all? I want to be on the social network that has money to do exciting things? What exciting things has any social networking site done?

Facebook is a way to maintain superficial contact with a large net of people, so yes, you want to be on the Facebook equivalent that is the most popular. Google+ is just a bad Facebook and the one new interesting feature (circles) is fundamentally broken in design.

There is nothing to Facebook but the people on it. In a video game there is the actual game. While it's fun to play the game that your friends are playing it's also fun to play the better game, and the tastes of you and your friends may be different from that of the public at large.

The world only needs one WoW, sure, just like it really only needs one COD. But there's still room for a Tera or Halo. Just not for a space WoW with laser swords.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 10, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
That said, I know countless people who play WoW just because of the people on it, and that have explicitly said multiple times that they felt "alone" in all the other games they tried, regardless of how good they were. And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!

I think we all agree that this is ridiculous, and still not one bit less true and widespread I'm afraid.

A lot has to do with pop culture and the need for some to be somewhat part of it, on top of it, as opposed to behind it in a niche no one else cares about but you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2012, 11:58:27 AM

I think we all agree that this is ridiculous, and still not one bit less true and widespread I'm afraid.


Yeah, I mean goodness, why would anyone want to participate in the same shared experience that everyone else they know is.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 10, 2012, 12:35:53 PM
You chose to ignore the "And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!" part when you wrote that comment, or you simply feel the same way?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 11, 2012, 01:17:58 AM
Populations on servers would imply there is at least as much room for space wow with laser swords as there is for tera. I don't especially like that this is true, but it is.

EA threw x hundred million away developing a game that should have cost tens (voice is expensive, but not that expensive), and the f2p transition was as poorly handled as anything since the nge. But the game remains viable no matter how derivative the mechanics are.

And it is the first MMOG I can think of that genuinely leverages the IP, rather than just paying lip service. So notable for that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 11, 2012, 03:41:33 PM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

Does this even make sense at all? I want to be on the social network that has money to do exciting things? What exciting things has any social networking site done?

WoW has a much larger budget to play with than Rift or GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 11, 2012, 04:05:45 PM
Quote
WoW has a much larger budget to play with than Rift or GW2.

But it does nothing exciting with that money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 11, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
You chose to ignore the "And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!" part when you wrote that comment, or you simply feel the same way?

If they mean by the "SOCIETY didn't care!" thing that all the zones are empty and they find it hard to find groups, then I do feel the same way. And in any case, there's something to be said for shared experiences.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on December 11, 2012, 05:23:26 PM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.

Guess you spoke too soon.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/11/trion-worlds-goes-through-workforce-reduction/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on December 11, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
Well, shit. Merry Christmas, ex-Trion employees :(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 11, 2012, 06:34:47 PM
Any idea how Anet is doing? They seem to be doing ok, and I guess we won't know until Q4 financials are posted. But I feel like GW2 doesn't get credit for a number of things because it's assumed to not be doing all that well yet.

GW2 did get voted as best game of 2012 by TIME magazine.
But FWIW, it's a great PVE game for first timers, but the shine wore off past 2nd month once you got a level 80.
Here's hoping they can pull off something nice for Xmas after the Lost Shore nonsensical event.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 11, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.

Guess you spoke too soon.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/11/trion-worlds-goes-through-workforce-reduction/

Gama Sutra says (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/183304/Rift_MMO_hit_hard_by_layoffs_at_Trion.php#.UMgehKzhdks) it was about 40 people which may be up to a third of RIFT's development team.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 12, 2012, 11:20:50 AM
Ugh.  Damn.  Sorry Trion guys.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on December 18, 2012, 06:53:02 AM
A little more info and a short monster vid:

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2012/12/17/creating-eso-the-dreugh


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 18, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Fucking people posting about ESO in an ESO thread.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 22, 2013, 07:13:48 AM
Beta signup (http://signup.elderscrollsonline.com/)

They also mention a new trailer, but I cant find it yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 22, 2013, 07:47:46 AM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".

I can barely contain my excitement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on January 22, 2013, 08:20:37 AM
The entire excellent thing is silly. Who wouldn't keep punching buttons until they got it to excellent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 08:31:09 AM
What's the point of asking you to type in up to 7 or so games you've tested before?  What's the point of asking which MMOs you've played before?

I bet there is a secret combination.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 22, 2013, 08:34:02 AM
Less CG, more in game. Please.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on January 22, 2013, 08:36:04 AM
I bet there is a secret combination.
The secret combination is "More than two titles played? Guaranteed to be at the jaded asshole stage, dump them like a hot potato".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 22, 2013, 09:16:20 AM
We putting F13 down as a guild?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 22, 2013, 09:22:02 AM
We putting F13 down as a guild?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 11:10:31 AM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 22, 2013, 11:15:52 AM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".


Mine too. See you in game!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 22, 2013, 11:29:21 AM
Jut noticed this game existed and that we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it. Honestly why didn't we just take the SWTOR thread and switch the name?

Does it bother anyone else that they changes the elder scroll elves to be prettier?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 22, 2013, 11:49:26 AM
we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it.

You are mistaken. 25 of those pages have been spent making fun of the mole.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 11:53:44 AM
I liked the trailer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 22, 2013, 01:53:54 PM
Beta FAQ:

http://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/679

Looks like they're aiming for weekend/short events (with maybe a smaller fraction that will be granted continuous access).

Also, after reading this interview with Creative Director Paul Sage...

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/7061/Elder-Scrolls-Online-Paul-Sage-Talks-Beta-Crafting-and-Progression.html

...It looks like the first (small) batch of invites (which will include yours truly and Palmer_eldritch) will go out sooner that expected:
Quote
Paul ended by saying that the small group beta will begin very soon, and you'll likely hear about it from proud forum posts of "I'm in the TESO beta, and that's all I can say because of the NDA."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 22, 2013, 03:53:47 PM
Don't forget to sob quietly so we can't hear you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 22, 2013, 04:46:22 PM
we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it.

You are mistaken. 25 of those pages have been spent making fun of the mole.

So cute...

On another note:  The trailer is pretty sweet, but it IS just CGI.  Anyone with money can hire a good CGI studio.  I hope we get some more gameplay info/footage soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 02:42:50 AM
Less CG, more in game. Please.

But .. ingame would give you an idea about what the game was actually like??


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 23, 2013, 07:05:49 AM
Everything about this game seems completely 'meh' 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 08:17:36 AM
No Argonians, Khajit, or Orcs.  It was pretty, but just another trailer with humans and elves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2013, 08:33:10 AM
SWTOR CGI trailers were pretty badass too...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 08:50:30 AM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 10:48:33 AM
Not without Argonians. :-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on January 23, 2013, 11:09:54 AM
Not without Argonians. :-P

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 23, 2013, 12:05:45 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

The cg itself was nicely done but again, meh.  It wasn't gameplay, it didn't feature anything but pretty people doing pretty things and was a complete non-story.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on January 23, 2013, 12:11:08 PM
Having never played an Elder Scrolls anything, that trailer was a snoozer that had entirely too much grey layered on top of grey.


What was supposed to be happening there?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 12:25:04 PM
Wulfgar and Drizzt were going on a dungeon romp through undead werewolves, while high above Entari assaulted a keep held by elves.  As Entari and the head Elf-Witch performed a staredown, Wulfgar climbed out of the sewers and turned it into a three-way.  Fade to black.  Bow-chikka-bow-wow.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on January 23, 2013, 12:25:14 PM
Having never played an Elder Scrolls anything, that trailer was a snoozer that had entirely too much grey layered on top of grey.


What was supposed to be happening there?
It's just a shout-out to Morrowind's brown on brown motif.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
Also three-faction pvp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2013, 12:50:55 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

No. They exist only to cloud the issues and fog the mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on January 23, 2013, 12:58:20 PM
I saw that there was something new about the game and hurried on over to f13 to see what Blackwulf had to say on the subject


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 01:26:19 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

No. They exist only to cloud the issues and fog the mind.

i love lamp


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 23, 2013, 01:31:58 PM
It was good as fantasy fighting porn but had almost nothing to do with the elder scrolls.  The one thing it tried to allude to, the three factions, didn't even work very well.  I had to rewatch it to figure out the last 'hero' type guy isn't another elf.

So the defenders were empirical but they aren't actually part of any of the factions?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
Yeah the Empire is the non-player universal badguy group apparently. Which makes me :heartbreak:, I almost always play an Imperial in these games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 04:25:05 PM
No Argonians, Khajit, or Orcs.  It was pretty, but just another trailer with humans and elves.

At least there was a dwarf!

also I think there is an argonian at the very beginning after the nordwarf kicks down the wall, but he subsequently transforms into a dark elf so


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 04:43:21 PM
After doing a cursory overview of the game's established lore making a three-way faction thing happen, I have come to the conclusion that the Ebonheart Pact represents two things

- The point at which you realize lore has gone beyond simply being massaged to fit a gameplay premise
- The "And that left us with three remaining races so they are an alliance now" alliance


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 23, 2013, 05:16:06 PM
Factions make no sense.  They just sort of sprinkled the 'evil' races around, each faction is absurd.

And where was there a dwarf?  If there are any dwarves they would be in an expansion and be the end raid tier.  There was a norn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on January 23, 2013, 06:07:51 PM
After doing a cursory overview of the game's established lore making a three-way faction thing happen, I have come to the conclusion that the Ebonheart Pact represents two things

- The point at which you realize lore has gone beyond simply being massaged to fit a gameplay premise
- The "And that left us with three remaining races so they are an alliance now" alliance

But everyone knows that three factions make everything perfect, which is why DAOC has been the most popular MMO ever since launch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 23, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
So that's why Warhammer failed!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 24, 2013, 12:55:44 AM
This might as well be "Generic fantasy MOO: the elder scrolls-ish"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 24, 2013, 02:22:17 AM
With furries (maybe)!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 24, 2013, 08:00:06 AM
It reminds me a lot of the WAR trailer now that I think about it.  That was a good trailer.  Shame about the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 25, 2013, 06:37:05 AM
Found this interesting tidbit in a recent Matt Firor interview.( http://www.3news.co.nz/Elder-Scrolls-Online-interview---Matt-Firor/tabid/418/articleID/284162/Default.aspx) Not sure these numbers have been stated so plainly before:

Quote
The 'Introduction to Elder Scrolls Online' video
(embedded above) has a massive PvP siege battle which
looks like hundreds or even thousands of soldiers facing
off against each other. Is a battle of this magnitude actually
possible in the game, made up of human players?

Every one of the figures in that video was a human player. We
got all of our devs into the game for a PvP test, and then
captured that sequence with them. It was all in-game.
Cyrodiil (the PvP map) is open-world and supports up to
2000 players in it at the same time. ESO’s client is designed
 to be able to handle (on the recommended spec) 200 players
on screen at the same time. That particular scene had about
115 players on each side.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 25, 2013, 06:46:35 AM
I wonder if it will run like Relic Raids did in DAOC. I remember slideshowing my way through a few of those on follow with some bard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 25, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
I wonder if it will run like Relic Raids did in DAOC. I remember slideshowing my way through a few of those on follow with some bard.

Haha, yeah, those were good times.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 26, 2013, 02:01:17 AM
Quote
And where was there a dwarf?

whenever I look at any standard press for this game, they are trying to make the nords as dwarf-like as possible, for the standard elfdwarfhuman trifecta


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on January 30, 2013, 12:06:07 PM
Have a couple of interviews from the Grauniad's games section:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/28/elder-scrolls-online-interview-matt-firor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/29/elder-scrolls-online-characters


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on January 31, 2013, 03:35:25 AM
Quote
A larger concern is how the melee combat of Skyrim and Oblivion, which is functional but somewhat unrefined, can be re-engineered for competitive play.

"It does work the same way mechanically in PVP as it does in PVE," says Firor. "So you swing with the left mouse and block with the right mouse, but there are a couple of new moves, like a really fast left click then right click will stun someone, plus things like doubletapping a key to roll away.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2013, 06:23:31 AM
These guys....I think they mean well, but I just wanna pat them on the head and say "you are just so CUTE!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2013, 06:48:41 AM
By the time it launches I can't tell what will happen. Will the hype become so large that people just take a chance on it? Or will it be one of those things where people that are Skryim fans say DO NOT WANT.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 31, 2013, 07:00:01 AM
Let's agree on something:

- Chances it will be acceptable as an Elder Scrolls game? Less than zero.
- Chances it will be acceptable as a MMORPG, and maybe even good? Some. Why not? We don't even know enough to say "zero" about this (while we know enough to say "zero" about the previous point).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2013, 07:01:06 AM
Yeah it could be a decent MMO. I signed up for the beta as a lark. Who knows?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2013, 08:04:09 AM
Could be a decent mmo but man they are gonna make mistakes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on January 31, 2013, 08:24:00 AM
I can't be bothered to delve through the material.  Is the game class-based or skill/perk based like the previous games?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on January 31, 2013, 10:08:31 AM
Yes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 31, 2013, 06:57:12 PM
Class based.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 31, 2013, 07:20:06 PM
And skill based.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on February 01, 2013, 05:05:30 AM
So it's DAoC?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 01, 2013, 07:59:03 AM
So it's DAoC?  :awesome_for_real:

With an Elder Scrolls skin and more PVE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 01, 2013, 08:03:20 AM
Here's their chance to learn from WAR, then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on February 01, 2013, 10:22:57 AM
You're a funny guy, you know that?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on February 02, 2013, 12:26:40 PM
Tell me more about this "learn" concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 03, 2013, 05:09:06 AM
It's where you ignore your textbooks and drink yourself silly at parties every night of the week.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on February 03, 2013, 05:21:41 AM
Tell me more about this "learn" concept.

Three star talent, four star drive, with a star saved for post-launch content. .


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on February 14, 2013, 09:36:12 AM
The entire excellent thing is silly. Who wouldn't keep punching buttons until they got it to excellent.

Well, I am average. Now even games think I suck.   :sad_panda: :sad_panda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on February 23, 2013, 07:07:43 AM
If any of you haven't really felt inclined to hunt down the various details that have been released about this game, here's a guy who compiled all kinds of sourced info in one handy place.  Nothing new here, if you've been following every detail that's trickled out.

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1443440-the-comprehensive-eso-mechanics-thread-100-sourced-information/



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on March 13, 2013, 05:44:46 AM
The last games I was this excited for were Warhammer online and Diablo 3.  Reviewing my history I can now make the following prediction:

The game will look visually stunning but be plagued with a series of game-breaking balance issues/exploits and half developed features that will prove more frustrating than fun.  Most hardcore guilds RvR will leave after 3 months to return to rift/GW2/WoT.  Zenimax media owns them both. Betheda will milk a few more dollars out of Skyrim via dlc’s then be folded into Zenimax Online to create the new dlc areas. The game will eventually fold or move to f2p after months of being unable to address core gameplay issues and a string of broken promises that craters Bethesda's brand.  Zenimax online will be cut loose, Bethesda will be gone and the francise will be left a smoking ruin.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 13, 2013, 09:16:33 AM
I think it will succeed if their plan is to hold 250k subs continually, and make a profit that way.

If their plan is to hold a million subs? It's an expectations gap you can't win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2013, 09:22:41 AM
At this point anyone making a subscription MMO is a fool.  They all overplan their sub base and are devastated afterwards.  Expecting this to be any different is putting too much faith in humanity and the 'business sense' of the games industry.

I'd be shocked if they were planning for LESS than 1 mil continual subs.  Much like new housing there's too many features demanded by the market for the lower revenue ranges.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on March 19, 2013, 10:23:10 AM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 19, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
I forgot to mention this two weeks ago.  There was a huge troll/ argument around TES:O going on in the Neverwinter beta chat during the public week.  So many  - SO MANY - people were damn certain it was going to be free-form "just like Elder Scrolls, otherwise you wouldn't call it that!"

Not even through the first subheading and I've read 4 things that will make these people rage so hard I think my Schadenfreude just had an embolism. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 19, 2013, 07:15:50 PM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-
The contents of the article aside; is it just my eyesight/monitor getting worse, or is the font that PAReport use in their articles hard to read? I've seen the same font in a couple of other places and it's starting to bug me. Seems like parts of some letters are in bold (like the first line in each 'h'). I get the same feeling from reading it as I do when I Read Text Where Every Letter Starts With A Capital Letter. -_-



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on March 19, 2013, 08:24:02 PM
The font is Arial. Something on your end is broken.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 19, 2013, 09:12:32 PM
It's Helvetica, which is much better for signs and banners than it is text. 

Calibri is the most used 'business type' font right now - reads like butter, but is fairly dry looking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 19, 2013, 10:00:04 PM
Interesting. Looks fine in IE 9, but both Opera and Chrome have the same issue with the font. Curiouser and curiouser.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 20, 2013, 01:38:21 AM
I think I see what Xuri sees. It's just come caps letter on my end have a "bold" upper side.

This:

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3584773/Fonts.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on March 20, 2013, 02:46:00 AM
I catch Destructoid on my Roku frequently (see Rev3 games on youtube), and Max Scoville (sp?) mentioned in the last episode that he had some hands on playtime.  Not much of substance was discussed but from what he could tell it seemed that they are very much trying to cater to the single player "Hero" storyline with the option of grouping with other "heroes" if you want.   And apparently while there are classes, they're just templates as per previous iterations of Elder Scrolls games, and customization is completely free beyond that point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 20, 2013, 02:58:59 AM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-
The contents of the article aside; is it just my eyesight/monitor getting worse, or is the font that PAReport use in their articles hard to read? I've seen the same font in a couple of other places and it's starting to bug me. Seems like parts of some letters are in bold (like the first line in each 'h'). I get the same feeling from reading it as I do when I Read Text Where Every Letter Starts With A Capital Letter. -_-
They are trying to use one of those shitty webfonts because standard fonts that actually work are just too functional for some people.  As with most webfonts it looks like garbage on every browser except the guy's who came up with the idea to use it.  Other people think it's arial or helvetica because those are the options it falls back on if your system can't display it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on March 20, 2013, 09:10:28 AM
I think I see what Xuri sees. It's just come caps letter on my end have a "bold" upper side.

This:

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3584773/Fonts.png)
Must be a browser issue of some kind, because it doesn't look your screenshot on my browser.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 20, 2013, 09:37:52 AM
Don't want to drag this off topic too much, but enabling the ClearType feature in Windows 7 cleared out this problem for me in Opera (strangely, it had no effect in Chrome). Of course, it also changed the font and made it look different in other programs all over the place, but...meh ;P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
A page of font discussion over a preview article.

This game has legs, I tell you!


Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.

Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on March 20, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
Interesting. Looks fine in IE 9, but both Opera and Chrome have the same issue with the font. Curiouser and curiouser.

IE's font renderer is shit. Chrome should usually have better looking fonts unless they are trying to use some weird webfont. Also, Helvetica for body copy makes Baby Jesus stabby.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 20, 2013, 01:41:44 PM


Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.

But.. but.. but this one will be balanced, we swear!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on March 20, 2013, 05:06:38 PM
Yeah, that font thing is really weird.

IE10 on top, Chrome on bottom


Just checked and ClearType is set to on already in Win7.

As far as the game is concerned, I really could care two shits about Elder Scrolls as a franchise, I just want them to make their single-player games playable in a small-scale co-op fashion (2-4 people). I don't need an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on March 20, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either.

Especially not during a press demonstration of an alpha build area.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on March 20, 2013, 07:24:43 PM


Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.


I talked to someone who got to play at a press event and they said the same thing.  I said, well, if that is the case, then great, but I've heard that literally more times than I can remember at this point, and it never really pans out that way in reality.

Bottom line is, at this point my default opinion about any MMORPG is that it will suck.  If the game comes out and people like it for more than 2-3 months on a large scale, maybe I'll try though.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 21, 2013, 06:49:02 AM

Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.

Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.

Heh I was saying the same thing.  "orly? You picked a melee defensive ability because you are melee? Good for you.  What? That will be a shit build once you group with people? Of Course! That's how MMOs work."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stokowski on March 21, 2013, 07:54:45 AM
"... Stros M'kai, a small island not far from the city of Daggerfall"

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 21, 2013, 10:16:06 AM
Yeah, that kind of confused me a bit. You know, since it's not anywhere near (http://images.uesp.net/c/c3/TamrielMap.jpg) Daggerfall (or even High Rock in general) at all.

Surely they haven't moved the thing.

... right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 21, 2013, 11:16:17 AM
What's a map of the Elder Scrolls' world have to do with this game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 21, 2013, 11:51:45 AM
It's an island so it just floated away as the centuries passed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 21, 2013, 12:16:40 PM
It's in the province adjacent to High Rock. I understand the desire to find things wrong with this game, but that's getting awfully nitpicky.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 21, 2013, 03:09:01 PM
I'm not even complaining about the game, I'm just slightly baffled at the previewer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on March 22, 2013, 12:41:46 AM
It's Helvetica, which is much better for signs and banners than it is text. 

Calibri is the most used 'business type' font right now - reads like butter, but is fairly dry looking.

Could be either actually. From the page's style sheet.

body {
    font-family: "PAR",Helvetica,Arial,Verdana,sans-serif;
    font-size: 14px;
    color: rgb(44, 44, 44);
}


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 22, 2013, 08:04:15 AM
I realized that about 1 second after I posted but never corrected myself.

Odd question though:  What's "PAR"?  I've never run across that yet.  I tried to match it up in the source but couldn't find it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 22, 2013, 08:23:59 AM
Guys, guys. You can force fonts and smoothing inside of Chrome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 22, 2013, 08:44:15 AM
I realized that about 1 second after I posted but never corrected myself.

Odd question though:  What's "PAR"?  I've never run across that yet.  I tried to match it up in the source but couldn't find it.
As I said earlier it is a shitty webfont, probably custom made, I assume it is an acronym with the first two letters standing for penny arcade.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 22, 2013, 11:47:30 AM
Penny Arcade Report, it's a sister site to the web comic in an attempt to be gaming journalists.  I do not believe Gabe or Tycho actually have much to do with PAR at all but the news is semi-decent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 22, 2013, 06:44:16 PM
Yea I kinda like their style.

Waited on line for an hour to play 20 minutes of ESO at PAX East. It wasn't terrible, for the obviously-early playable demo that it was. But neither was it Skyrim. Kind of a blend of DDO and GW2 for me. There's an action-y element to it, even with the limited abilities they granted ya (they offered pre-rolled level 6 characters but you got to choose your skills, which were most, but not all, of those available). The characters were bigger on screen than in GW2. I didn't see the first person mode the earlier PAR reviewer saw. That alone would change the feel (duh).

Kinda looking sorta-maybe similar to Skyrim in models, but it didn't have that polish. Which I can forgive given how early it is. I can see where they're headed graphically. While I don't expect super-modded-out Skyrim nor even Tomb Raider, it's not going to be ugly. And in fact, it'll be a lot less brown than stock Skyrim.

The demo reels on the TVs were all about the demo. They spent a good amount of time tutoring you while you stood on line. We all got a nice group chuckle out of "WASD is for movement, left click is for soft attack". Marvel Universe Online at least changes that. But then, it only changes it to make it like Diablo 3  :awesome_for_real:

ESO pre-pre-Alpha didn't suck. But it wasn't anything new either.

I will say though, the cinematic is pretty cool (old video from January (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0jNT5cMwxw0#!)). That was the first time I was arsed to watch it all the way through. Some day month year we'll play games at that resolution.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 22, 2013, 07:26:51 PM
What was the actiony element? Can you elaborate?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 08:34:15 AM
Positioning didn't seem to matter, but there was a lot of movement to move in or out of range. I was playing Sorcerer, and while it did have the ES-like "block", I still didn't want to get hit. Move in, move out, roll to dodge, very responsive keys. Wasn't as frenetic as GW2, but then my character was only level 6, and I spent the whole session on an investigation mission in Daggerfall.

It all works well in the third person as you'd expect. Which makes me wonder how well first person will work.

One nice thing I just remembered: very clean UI. You didn't see anything you didn't need to see in that context. Only see the HP bar when getting it, only see the mana bar when using magic, etc. Like Skyrim. Maybe a little thing, but it was nice to not have the casino-level-of-noisy UI that is WoW, or the distractingly-colorful UI of GW2. If you came straight from Skyrim, you'll feel at home. Except for the chat box, which was populated the entire time by NPC chatter. If I pick this up at launch, I'll be turning off the chat altogether. Map was also useful, definitely inspired much by "go to dot/highlighted area" of WoW/Aion/etc.

One annoying that I just remembered: the pitch. Jeezus people, how long has it been since we literally did stand in one spot and hit the auto attack key? That hasn't been a point of differentiation for a new MMO for 10 years.

One thing I laughed out loud at: someone asked about crafting. With great effusiveness they described how awesome it would be, without saying how it would work. I also overheard a "not for launch we wanted to focus on polish" answer to a question I assumed was about housing.

Overall there's definitely an ES feel here. As much as I too would just like small co-op Skyrim, I don't think they're shitting on the memory of Skyrim with this game. It won't be for the hardcore Skyrim modder getting into wiki arguments on story points. But then, MMOs haven't been for that group since ever, delusion marketing notwithstanding.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on March 23, 2013, 10:37:59 AM
Darniaq, thanks for the unbiased review.  I know you only had a few minutes with the game, but it sounds like there's at least as much good as bad in your first impression.  I hope 6 more months or so will provide enough time for them to polish it into something that will impress.  I'm excited for the game mainly because of what I've heard in the last week about character progression.  Seems we'll get to pick our build from hundreds of skills, and some of those skills are from trees where you choose a branch, and you even get a skill tree based on your starting race.  In other words, it's unlikely you'll ever have a character just like the person you are grouped with or fighting.  This is important to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 23, 2013, 11:31:37 AM
Consider that housing is one of the more engaging parts of Skyrim, and I think launching without is a mistake.  It doesn't need to be as verbose as Hearthfire, but the player should be able to purchase a house in the major cities at least. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 01:51:03 PM
To reiterate, I only assume the discussion was about housing. And that assumption was based on a Game Informer article confirming the same. But I could be wrong about what I heard. He coulda been asking about music :-)

I don't know that lack of housing is to ESO that space combat was to SWG per se. But it does seem an example of deprioritizing a core element of the IP in favor of the medium shift. No MMO since UO has lived or died by its housing. Even Blizzard only gave it the occasional passing mention. Housing is not synonymous with success.

But it's a shame anyway.

blackwulf: as to branching skills, I hope so. It didn't come out in the demo but I was a young character and the system didn't seem complete.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 23, 2013, 02:07:08 PM
One annoying that I just remembered: the pitch. Jeezus people, how long has it been since we literally did stand in one spot and hit the auto attack key? That hasn't been a point of differentiation for a new MMO for 10 years.

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on this? I am not sure I understand what you mean, and this seems to be about an aspect that matters a lot to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 23, 2013, 03:57:59 PM
I think he's saying they used, "No standing there just auto-attacking!" in the 'pitch' (market hype) speech prior to the demo.

Which if true is just sad, for at least the reason he points out.  That model hasn't been standard since 2002.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 06:10:26 PM
That's it exactly. There were a litany of lte 2000s-era pitches they'd use over and over. All variations of "Never fight for loot", "never fight for your chance at a boss", "no more trains to zone", and "don't just hit autoattack and watch".

Eventually they all fell out of use when even the most vacuous hired PR temp realized the audience was passively mocking their assertion that those things were still selling points.

But somehow "don't just hit autoattack and watch" is still being used. Like we're all skill-uping our 7xGM in the Yew graveyard or our 1H in HHP or something else we haven't done in a decade.

tl;dr: nobody is just hitting autoattack and watching anymore. ESO doesn't have it. But that's just being something built after 2003. They're out of date for pitching that as an improvement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 07:28:06 PM
Just saw this article (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-23-elder-scrolls-ip-first-step-in-online-reaching-consumers) at gameindustry.biz. Key:

Quote
"We're in beta right now, we're almost feature complete...

I'll just say I hope what they had at PAX was nothing more than a scripted slice, because near feature-complete Beta it most certainly was not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2013, 07:44:50 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on March 23, 2013, 09:20:00 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?

Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2013, 09:22:06 PM
Is the alternative tab target auto attack? Then no.

If it's something else, sure we can try that. I just don't want to keep doing tab targetting and auto swing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 23, 2013, 11:08:57 PM
Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?

I hate it, but the Diablo crowd seems to love it.  I'd much rather mouse move and spam abilities on my keyboard. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 23, 2013, 11:14:35 PM
Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?
I hate it, but the Diablo crowd seems to love it.  I'd much rather mouse move and spam abilities on my keyboard. 
Neither here nor there, but we don't want it in things that aren't Diablo or a game seated firmly in the niche genre of isometric loot-driven action RPGs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 24, 2013, 08:10:42 AM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 24, 2013, 10:06:45 AM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.

If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 24, 2013, 10:48:05 AM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.

If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?


Tera uses (manual) "white attacks" as a way to manage your mana/power used for magics and powers. I am not expecting TESO combat to be half as good as Tera's, but removing auto-attack is the first step towards a less repetitive and more user-dependent (as opposed to gear-and-spreadsheet dependent) combat experience.

EDIT: For the record, Tera is the perfect example of a combat where your soft/white attack is used a lot for tactical reasons but it cannot be spammed, mostly due the importance of positioning. So no crazy clicking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 24, 2013, 11:37:35 AM
If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?

I never played TERA (or if I did, quickly forgot it), but ESO felt more like what Falconeer described. It was not spammy in the way that makes you wonder why they didn't just make it an auto attack.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on March 24, 2013, 09:18:40 PM
Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shannow on March 25, 2013, 08:19:20 AM
Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?

God bless him if he had the patience to stand in that line.  That was stupid long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on March 25, 2013, 10:33:00 AM
I played it on Saturday, but I didn't wait in a line. Not sure what the circumstances were, actually, i just walked up to an open computer and started backstabbing people.
Whoops, thought this was the Neverwinter thread


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 25, 2013, 10:58:13 AM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 12:15:43 PM
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 25, 2013, 12:26:43 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 12:31:02 PM
You are right, in that case it makes perfect sense that you comment on the thread about a game that is not WoW to say how bad it would be if that game actually tried to be WoW without doing things the way WoW do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on March 25, 2013, 01:03:55 PM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.
In Neverwinter you just have to hold down the LMB. Kind of like playing a tf2 pyro  :awesome_for_real:

(obviously if you hold down the button like that, you'll be SOL if you need to dodge something. But hey, at least it's an option!)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 25, 2013, 03:51:16 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.
Or in the business of delivering an MMO to a genre where about 95% of the players have played WoW and probably half of them didn't play any MMOs before it and a good percentage of them probably haven't played another one for nearly as long.

In other words: nothing wrong with comparing an MMO to WoW. We were all comparing them to EQ1 originally once like-UO fell out of favor :awesome_for_real:

Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?
Wish I did but got burned out on line-standing after ESO :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 05:21:41 PM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.
Or in the business of delivering an MMO to a genre where about 95% of the players have played WoW and probably half of them didn't play any MMOs before it and a good percentage of them probably haven't played another one for nearly as long.

In other words: nothing wrong with comparing an MMO to WoW. We were all comparing them to EQ1 originally once like-UO fell out of favor :awesome_for_real:

Nothing wrong comparing but there's not a real comparison up there. What's the point of thinking of WoW without auto-attack?
Are they gonna remove auto-attack from WoW? Or do we know if TESO boss fights are going to be built as WoW's? There are already thousands of games and MMOs where you have to click to attack (or keep a key pressed to attack repeatedly), and no one gets hand cramps. Because they are not-WoW and they are not built around the auto-attack mechanic which allows for and make bearable hours long fights.
This is not about what way is better, not in the slightest and not what I meant. To each his/her/their own. I only meant to point out that if you always comment on things based on how they work or would work in WoW, even when the topic is Absolutely-Not-WoW, hard not to note that your perspective is very narrow.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on March 25, 2013, 05:24:55 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.

In which case you'd just play WoW - as a dozen companies have discovered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 25, 2013, 08:05:31 PM
Are they gonna remove auto-attack from WoW? Or do we know if TESO boss fights are going to be built as WoW's? There are already thousands of games and MMOs where you have to click to attack (or keep a key pressed to attack repeatedly), and no one gets hand cramps. Because they are not-WoW and they are not built around the auto-attack mechanic which allows for and make bearable hours long fights.
This is not about what way is better, not in the slightest and not what I meant. To each his/her/their own. I only meant to point out that if you always comment on things based on how they work or would work in WoW, even when the topic is Absolutely-Not-WoW, hard not to note that your perspective is very narrow.
I agree with you on the second point. The universe isn't measured on a scale of +/- WoW :-) I just think it's so inevitable to compare <New Thing> with <Most Popular Thing> that it's silly to critique that comparison. Everything derives from something else, which is the glass-half-full version of everything stands on the shoulder of giants.

On the first point though: I actually find "WoW autoattack" interesting. I don't recall it ever being autoattack for me. Everything I did was a keystroke. But then, I only played caster-like classes and could never understand the allure of wands. It was still spammy, especially in the old school Fire/Arc template (scortch scortch scortch scorth, oh wait for it... scrortch!). I didn't have access to nearly enough abilities in the ESO demo to see if it'd be the same.

I also didn't see anything in the way of group combos or skills building into other skills. But my first real blush with ESO was actually this demo, so I don't know nearly as much as everyone else here about how the whole thing plays, or what's accessible in beta, etc.

I'm hoping for some element of dynamic world events (even if they're predictable like Rift or GW2) and some amount of action-y combat. Based on what you said about, sounds like TERA has that. Once i get through Bioshock, I may hafta give that a whirl just to see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2013, 03:59:24 AM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.

In which case you'd just play WoW - as a dozen companies have discovered.

Not anymore.  With blizzard screwing the pooch on the last expansion and now fucking the same player base again By forcing progression and wanting raids to "matter" WoW is weaker than ever.   Only Pokemon and habit seem to be keeping people in it now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 27, 2013, 04:51:34 PM
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.

Don't delude yourself into thinking they won't steal from the modern MMO genre in huge swaths, forget wow.

You have either two options when it comes to twitch attacks.

1. Make each attack meaningful IE:Skyrim, putting a lot of power in the swing and not in special abilities except now many will feel like your game doesn't have enough depth cause they don't have rows of shiny buttons.
2. You have a hotbar filled with abilities much more important that your constant button mashing which becomes tedious.

I would love to play a rogue that wields weapons and doesn't have a million different "tricks" with 6 hotbars like SWTOR but do you really think that's gonna happen?  Face facts, TESO is not going to break much tradition and that means you are gonna be mashing the mouse like an idiot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 27, 2013, 05:39:12 PM
2. You have a hotbar filled with abilities much more important that your constant button mashing which becomes tedious.

TERA says combat can have a hotbar filled with abilities alongside twitchy soft attacks that are important without a need to spam them. I am not even remotely thinking (hoping) TESO will have a combat like that, or a combat I will enjoy. All I am saying is that MMORPG combat has evolved, and it might not be obvious if we only pay attention to million-subscribers games, but there's some pretty cool and smart stuff out there already.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 27, 2013, 06:37:34 PM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on March 27, 2013, 08:03:20 PM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

Which doesn't really matter much outside PvE raiding damage parsing poopsockers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 28, 2013, 12:32:50 AM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, you should play more than one game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 28, 2013, 02:34:46 AM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

Which doesn't really matter much outside PvE raiding damage parsing poopsockers.

PVP

And falconeer, I've played over a dozen different MMO's in the past decade not just wow. TESO is not some bizarre indy title either, if you think they're going to rock the boat with innovation I think you're being naive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 28, 2013, 03:37:11 AM
No Lakov, all I am saying is that I don't understand why you fail to acknowledge that there are combat systems now in MMOs that work perfectly well without auto-attack. I never meant to say (well, not in this thread) that they are better. Just that they exist and work very well, while you seemed to imply with the comment that started this that they would just be hand-cramps material (since they would in WoW).

No idea what TESO will be like. I have zero investment in this game, not even trying to like it. Just saying that having a soft attack on your left click and a defensive skill on your right click on top of a hotbar filled with powers and abilities is far from being a bad thing, as demonstrated by a few recent products out there. Regardless of personal preference, implementation and execution are what will make it awesome or shitty. Not the concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 28, 2013, 08:51:16 AM
Lakov, you're pretty much wrong though. If you're spamming attacks in TERA you're doing it wrong. How wrong will vary on class. Timing is more important than anything else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 14, 2013, 02:02:37 PM
So there is a 20 minutes leaked gameplay video bouncing around the 'tubes... the game looks pretty damn generic...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 02:18:51 PM
PC Gamer (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/14/here-are-20-leaky-minutes-of-elder-scrolls-online-footage/) has it.

It's... not exactly bad. It's just so utterly devoid of personality or charm and looks exactly like a game that hasn't had any graphical improvement since development started. The UI is austere and I suppose vaguely reminiscent of Skyrim's UI (though probably not as fuckawful to use) and the animations are pretty cheap and lifeless. The game seems to be fully voice-overed but we're not talking Bioware stuff by a long shot.
It reminds me most of a slightly updated DAoC. I don't say that in a nostalgic fashion, either. Because what it reminds me of is all the mistakes and terrible old systems that game had over a decade ago - XP debt, anyone? Yeah, I thought not.

About the biggest difference to most fantasy MMO gameplay TESO has is the reticule - magic is cast in the same manner as the singleplayer games and I'd assume Archery follows the same rules.

It just seems crazy Zenimax think this is going to cut the mustard in a post SWtOR/GW2 market or remotely compete with any of the old guard games. This feels like a massive misstep in the end. It'll probably do alright at launch if they can clean it up between now and then but I reckon it might have the fastest player exodus in MMO history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 14, 2013, 02:38:30 PM
You can feel the 2007 development start-date leaking through the screen


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
Two things bother me about that video. One thing was whoever was "playing" the game was so horrible at it, they managed not only to die twice within starting, but they also refused to stop clicking through the quests. If you're showing gameplay, show at least one full voiced character without cutting them off. Total dumbass.

The second thing was the casting. It seemed like there was no targeting in the traditional tab sense, however there we a couple of times where missiles found targets when the camera was facing another direction. If there are lock-on targets, that's a no-go for me. That's just fancy tab-target.

The UI/graphics are going to be a complaint for some, which I guess I can understand on the graphics front. Skyrim sort of set the bar there, and anything that steps backwards and releases later will be looked upon with contempt. However, we all KNEW the UI would be a disaster. They've never done that right. Ever, ever, ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2013, 03:56:39 PM
Looks like it's gone now, any other place to see it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 04:09:38 PM
Looks like it's gone now, any other place to see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lddqEwKVgyA


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 14, 2013, 04:37:47 PM
You can feel the 2007 development start-date leaking through the screen

This. Well said.

Looks something between Vanguard and Age of Conan. Quality is of course better than those but not nearly enough as one would expect both by an Elder Scrolls and a 2013 game. Very, very underwhelming. I must say, as much as I wasn't believing in this game, this is much less than the "very little" I was already expecting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on April 14, 2013, 04:50:51 PM
Two things bother me about that video. One thing was whoever was "playing" the game was so horrible at it, they managed not only to die twice within starting, but they also refused to stop clicking through the quests. If you're showing gameplay, show at least one full voiced character without cutting them off. Total dumbass.



I've never seen any MMO preview/leak video with the player being actually good at the game. Like ever. I really don't understand it either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 04:56:32 PM
i don't think they're trying to be good at the game, I thnk they're attempting to show as much in a small timeframe as possible. So stuff like initiating combat, random aggro, death etc is really just demonstrating what the system has in place for these inevitablities. Nobody actually plays MMOs like the guy in the video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 14, 2013, 05:07:06 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2013, 05:25:03 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)

Just pick your fantasy MMO of choice, put its name into youtube, watch a video of someone playing it for a while and then you've basically seen it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 05:27:39 PM
I can pretty much promise anyone who wishes they'd caught the footage while it was up has only missed someone wandering boredly around the dullest acre of MMO real estate seen since 2002 and getting beaten up by wolves and mudcrabs. It's probably outrageously ungracious to dismiss the game from this leak alone but it really hasn't done Zenimax any favours; both that it's so utterly uninteresting and how desperate they've been to pull it speaks volumes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 14, 2013, 05:35:10 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)

Just pick your fantasy MMO of choice, put its name into youtube, watch a video of someone playing it for a while and then you've basically seen it.

Don't need to, I played it. Not to repeat a few pages back, but it had a Morrowind look with a kinda-Skyrim/DDO action feel. It was generic in a early LoTRO way without even any of the more recent features like dynamic or scaling events, which weren't really on the scene until near 2010 anyway.

Between WoW and GW2, there were various attempts to figure out what WoW didn't do well for a large enough number of people to justify a AAA without needing to fight Blizzard. It feels like these guys figured "but it's set in the beloved ES world!!" as their main point of difference, and enough people are using Skyrim's success to continue that kool aid drinking, ignoring that some of the very things that made Skyrim successful aren't on the short list of launch features for ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 07:13:40 PM
We all kind of suspected it was going to be shit, but I'll be fair and say this really wasn't going to do it any favors either way. The setting was never going to carry the game if the combat wasn't true to the other games. That was the problem. Blizzard wouldn't have been able to make a game like Skyrim, set in Azeroth, and then released WoW with tab-target combat after the fact to the same acclaim. Hell, I doubt Blizzard could release WoW NOW to the same acclaim. It's a fool's errand to even try.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 14, 2013, 07:23:14 PM
To be fair it has pretty good character customization for an MMO anymore, on par with other TES games.

After that though...uhhh...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 15, 2013, 04:58:53 AM
Video also located here:
http://vimeo.com/64004925


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2013, 09:21:23 AM
Looks something between Vanguard and Age of Conan. Quality is of course better than those but not nearly enough as one would expect both by an Elder Scrolls and a 2013 game. Very, very underwhelming. I must say, as much as I wasn't believing in this game, this is much less than the "very little" I was already expecting.
From the short bit I saw it looked like EQ with a few more polys.

Roommate: "Hey, come take a look at this."

Lantyssa: "That looks like EQ."

R: "EQ2?"

L: "No, EQ.  What is it?  Some indie project?"

R: "TESO."

Both: <nervous laughter>


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on April 15, 2013, 10:31:04 AM
This one's up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vcvo1peVCY

Its funny how bad this looks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 15, 2013, 10:38:01 AM
The font and colors remind me of Vanguard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bunk on April 15, 2013, 10:38:19 AM
It looked to me that the targeting was reticule based in first person, but as soon as he switched to third person he was able to kite backwards with his spells hitting the target automatically.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 15, 2013, 11:32:38 AM
1080p downloadable version here: https://mega.co.nz/#!xMECgZCa!UHHVEUYqaWiZZRo4ifD18zDVi9Q7YCUy3XS00t-_GtA


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2013, 11:40:54 AM
It looked to me that the targeting was reticule based in first person, but as soon as he switched to third person he was able to kite backwards with his spells hitting the target automatically.

That was exactly my thought as well. Which is true, is a terrifying departure from what they've promised, and what ES games were about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2013, 11:53:19 AM
1080p downloadable version here: https://mega.co.nz/#!xMECgZCa!UHHVEUYqaWiZZRo4ifD18zDVi9Q7YCUy3XS00t-_GtA

Why anyone would want to download a 1080p video of a game that looks distinctly pre-HD is beyond me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 15, 2013, 11:55:41 AM
The font and colors remind me of Vanguard.
I really hope those are placeholders while they work on the much better looking replacements.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 15, 2013, 11:57:06 AM
It's impressive how hard they are working to take down the leaks. The game looks great, I'd be proud of it if I were them.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2013, 12:06:33 PM
It's impressive how hard they are working to take down the leaks. The game looks great, I'd be proud of it if I were them.  :oh_i_see:

Case in point, Blizzard's lack of NDA in their beta process for WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 15, 2013, 12:52:00 PM
I really hope those are placeholders while they work on the much better looking replacements.

How many times has that sentence or some variant been written about a soon-to-be-released MMOG? And every single time the answer is those are not placeholders.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on April 15, 2013, 01:20:43 PM
This feeding frenzy of fail is why NDAs exist. :facepalm:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on April 15, 2013, 01:38:25 PM
This feeding frenzy of fail is why NDAs exist. :facepalm:

And the hyperbole isn't restricted to F13 though it sometimes seems like it. A couple of examples. I grabbed the HD version off a torrent site and whoever said it looks like Everquest might want to look into an eye exam or a new video card. Dispite being loaded with compression artifacts the graphics looks on a par with Rift imo.  If anyone wants to dispute that I will happily post an EQ1 screenshot and one from ESO for a real comparison.

Note: I don't plan to play this it does nothing for me but the frenzy of fail that pops up in this topic is retarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 15, 2013, 01:48:02 PM
Why anyone would want to download a 1080p video of a game that looks distinctly pre-HD is beyond me.

In the era of 50 mbit internet connections and always on connections, why would you get anything less?

Besides, you can read all the text and get a feel for just how generic this game is. It should be renamed to The _______________________ Online and let people choose their own adventure as to what the IP and setting actually are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 15, 2013, 01:49:09 PM
Gameplay should trump visuals anyway. Someone will probably call me a retarded old fart for saying that but I will retort with "Minecraft, bitch!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on April 15, 2013, 01:56:42 PM
Every single thing in that video looks like shit. Gameplay along with everything else, the whole nine yards looks like garbage.

The reason it reminds people of EQ1 is that the color of the player's name is I swear exactly the same as EQ1. That and it looks like ass. Not 1991 ass but pretty fucking horrible. Anyone defending the game after this needs to get their head examined.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2013, 02:44:07 PM
Gameplay should trump visuals anyway. Someone will probably call me a retarded old fart for saying that but I will retort with "Minecraft, bitch!"

I can't play a video. It hardly seems unfair to judge a game on its visual merits when that's really all you can judge it by at this point. And it looks pretty much like a game from 5 years ago. The textures are drab and muddy, the area showcased is derivative and lacks any sort of detail. The character animations are functional at best, but there doesn't seem to be anything rooting the characters to the ground, they just float and skim. They don't appear to interact with the environment - the ground chaff doesn't acknowledge their movement through it.

About the highest praise I can give the graphics is the water looks nice and the shadows are good. From what I can make of the gameplay, it's a generic MMO with FP reticule aiming that switches to auto-target in 3rd person (which understandably would worry PvPers) unless I'm misinterpreting things. Um. Yay? I'm going to go play with the furries in Wildstar. Carbine seem to know what 'fun' is.

Minecraft. That is also what fun is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 15, 2013, 04:44:00 PM
I'm going to go play with the furries

well there's a big surprise


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on April 15, 2013, 04:49:47 PM
Everquest?  You folks need a reminder of what Everquest looked like.  Conan, maybe, with EQ2's terrible interface.   It's about where middle-high level games were 4-5  years ago, not 1999 or 2004.  They're certainly better than the champs online graphics, just with terrible player models.  

Oddly enough it's the first game I've seen where I wish there was *more* brown. Too much yellow makes it really hard on the eyes.

That said, gameplay is as I predicted.  Shocker!  Well.. what combat there was of it.  Shitloads of walking/ running around, just like an actual elder scrolls game!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 15, 2013, 04:50:38 PM
Don't want to white knight this game too much (after all they still haven't invited me to the beta despite telling me I had an excellent chance!!) but we also don't know if that video shows the game at anything like max settings or what sort of PC he was playing it on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on April 15, 2013, 04:53:27 PM
Don't want to white knight this game too much (after all they still haven't invited me to the beta despite telling me I had an excellent chance!!) but we also don't know if that video shows the game at anything like max settings or what sort of PC he was playing it on.

When he shows the option screens he's running on max.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 15, 2013, 04:58:02 PM
Don't want to white knight this game too much (after all they still haven't invited me to the beta despite telling me I had an excellent chance!!) but we also don't know if that video shows the game at anything like max settings or what sort of PC he was playing it on.

When he shows the option screens he's running on max.

Ah. Then it does look like shite.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2013, 06:50:11 PM
And I said "EQ with more polys".  Or as others have said, Vanguard.  Though Vanguard looked better the little I saw of it.

Considering I played neither, it was a snap comment.  Geezus.  I love how you guys can sperg out on an insulting comment. :heart:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on April 15, 2013, 07:14:46 PM
I love how you guys can sperg out on an insulting comment. :heart:

But sperging out with the insulting comments is a ok right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 15, 2013, 07:20:09 PM
The very second I saw that cg opening with the 'pretty' elder scroll elves I knew it was going to be shit.  I'm just surprised no one else noticed it, game made by committe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2013, 07:58:57 PM
I'm going to go play with the furries

well there's a big surprise

Says the guy who always makes bears.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on April 16, 2013, 07:32:36 AM
Looks like EQ2 to me. The uninspired EQ2 of launch, not the later stuff that actually looked good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2013, 08:30:30 AM
I don't really care how it looks. The targeting is a lie!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on April 16, 2013, 01:00:12 PM
Don't want to white knight this game too much (after all they still haven't invited me to the beta despite telling me I had an excellent chance!!) but we also don't know if that video shows the game at anything like max settings or what sort of PC he was playing it on.

When he shows the option screens he's running on max.

Ah. Then it does look like shite.

This. Not a 2013 game at all. I saw nothing in that video that would make me want to play this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 16, 2013, 02:44:33 PM
The Scandie with the beard was cute.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2013, 08:42:13 PM
The question is, how will they try to get the hypetrain rolling again?

Speaking of which, where's our little buddy Blackwulf? I figured he would enjoy this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on April 16, 2013, 09:14:41 PM
Hmm it doesnt look as bad as  I expected from those impressions , yet it doesnt look like something worth releasing in 2013 either.    Video also shows nothing of subtance ,besides really unpolished UI and low settings graphics. They have a lot of work to do on this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 16, 2013, 11:45:22 PM
from october 2012:

I'm waiting for a video of the combat system.

It'll be one of those things like when you look at Tera's mass pvp and have all those feelings about Why You Don't Do This Anymore™ dredged up.

short copy: watched. it was that.

sucks, but then again I don't look like i'll have to eat a hat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 17, 2013, 01:37:48 AM
Speaking of which, where's our little buddy Blackwulf? I figured he would enjoy this.

I agree, I am sure he loved this. And he even has reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on April 17, 2013, 02:04:44 AM
some beta forum leaks

http://www.abload.de/img/teso-leakscopyn4a5w.png


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on April 17, 2013, 04:42:05 AM
Speaking of which, where's our little buddy Blackwulf? I figured he would enjoy this.

I agree, I am sure he loved this. And he even has reasons.

Oh, I'm still here.  No, I don't think the video looked good.  I'm not a moron.  I still have some irrational hope that it was an older build they knew was stable for the beta, and it had a lot of graphics options disabled.  I'm also hoping that even if graphics aren't awesome, other systems will make the game worthwhile, like character advancement and end game RVR.  Still cautiously waiting for more info and maybe my own chance at the beta.  I'm a bit less stoked than before, but what else is there to spend time waiting for?  McWoWstar?  Sorry, but I already tried a few WOW clones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on April 17, 2013, 05:40:11 AM
That things are now called WoWclones instead of EQclones or DIKU still amuses me for a variety of reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on April 17, 2013, 06:04:24 AM
The reason I label some games WoW clones as opposed to EQ clones or DIKU are because they copy, specifically, aspects of WoW.  Raid mechanics, rules for how many resurrections people in a raid can have, dungeon finders that teleport you into a dungeon with a group of strangers, etc.  The list is massive, but I think you know what I mean.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 17, 2013, 06:11:21 AM
I still have some irrational hope that it was an older build they knew was stable for the beta, and it had a lot of graphics options disabled.  I'm also hoping that even if graphics aren't awesome, other systems will make the game worthwhile, like character advancement and end game RVR.

ahahahahaha



AAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 17, 2013, 06:18:42 AM
It looked to me that the targeting was reticule based in first person, but as soon as he switched to third person he was able to kite backwards with his spells hitting the target automatically.

Uhyep. That's what I had seen to. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 17, 2013, 07:24:42 AM
some beta forum leaks

http://www.abload.de/img/teso-leakscopyn4a5w.png

Between reading that and watching the video I've lost any excitement I had about this game


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 17, 2013, 07:40:19 AM
The question is, how will they try to get the hypetrain rolling again?

Speaking of which, where's our little buddy Blackwulf? I figured he would enjoy this.

He just got back from a banning on the forums I run.

edit:
Oh by the way, the new term for Neckbeards to try to ridicule you for your choice of game if it isn't Camelot Unchained, SomeFormofEQ or TESO is that you are playing "McWowStar". They think they are insulting you by saying this for some reason.

It's not "WOWClone" any more. At least saying DIKU clone had a sense that you understood the history of the genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 17, 2013, 07:56:29 AM
I don't get it. Is it something to do with Wildstar?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on April 17, 2013, 08:03:09 AM
The reason I label some games WoW clones as opposed to EQ clones or DIKU are because they copy, specifically, aspects of WoW.  Raid mechanics, rules for how many resurrections people in a raid can have, dungeon finders that teleport you into a dungeon with a group of strangers, etc.  The list is massive, but I think you know what I mean.

Oh, I get it.  I'm amused by it because even 9 years later some developers/ pundits insist that "wow brought nothing/ changed nothing about the genre.  It succeed only because: BLIZZARD"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 17, 2013, 08:03:23 AM
Possibly, because Wildstar uses cartoony graphics.  From what I've seen they're very different games once you get past their shared background.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 17, 2013, 08:21:38 AM
I don't get it. Is it something to do with Wildstar?

Possibly, because Wildstar uses cartoony graphics.  From what I've seen they're very different games once you get past their shared background.

Most people see Wildstar as a cartoony game that talks about raids and quests and such. The comparison between Wildstar and WOW is a good one though. It's your typical level 1-Max, the Raid/Dungeon/Housing/Craft/PVP type of game. They seem to have iterated on the genre and are launching a game with all the new bells and whistle including updated poly count.

Wildstar gets put on my radar because Carbine is actually launching with a dungeon finder. First studio to do that at launch except maybe TERA I think (I can't remember TSW).

They like to stick "Mc" in there to insinuate that the pinnacle of your taste is analogous with wanting nothing more than to eat at McDonalds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 17, 2013, 08:32:29 AM
Who gives a fuck? I mean, really, who gives a fuck?

This shit where you are what you own, that your geek-cred is tied into the realness or whatever of the MMO you choose to play is way past its sell-by date.

McWoWStar? Jesus Christ, shoot me now. Want to know why I'm interested in it but not TESO? Because one looks reasonably competently made and not the other. Full stop. I'm not invested in the success or failure of either one, other than a bit of snickering once the chosen game of the neckbeards once again crashes and burns because it sucks ass. Give me something that doesn't destroy my will to live for two months that I can return to off and on over a period of several years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2013, 08:38:23 AM
TESO is the worst possible thing to do to the next elder scrolls game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 17, 2013, 08:44:19 AM
TESO is the worst possible thing to do to the next elder scrolls game.

This has studio killer written all over it. Bethesda's big enough and independent enough to absorb the inevitable blow, but goddamn... I just don't get this. At all. And I'm in the camp which thinks that you CAN make a good TESO. Everything I'm seeing about this says that this isn't it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 17, 2013, 09:00:16 AM
Possibly, because Wildstar uses cartoony graphics.  From what I've seen they're very different games once you get past their shared background.

Didn't they copy the WoW arena almost entirely and raids are capped at ... 40.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 17, 2013, 09:04:53 AM
It's a similar issue as we saw with Bioware-Austin.  It's a different group's take on Elder Scrolls.

Didn't they copy the WoW arena almost entirely and raids are capped at ... 40.
There's a lot Wildstar will have that WoW doesn't.  It's not the similarities people should be worried about, it's how they differentiate themselves.

What's publicly known is that they are trying to do some new things.  Like launching with Housing being a focus of the game, a more active combat system, and professions that change up gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 09:22:08 AM
I agree, the best case scenario is the scrap the project before they dump another year of development costs, salaries, and fees into a project that will do nothing but damage the brand. I seriously doubt that the game will recoup enough in 2013 to make up for the interval costs associated with the interim.

Well almost a year ago, I said they should scrap the damn thing and cut losses. Now they are a year later and buried even deeper, and this leak is going to ruin their chances at lying about the game in PR hype. I still recommend they walk away before this thing buries the brand.

But they won't. They'll go down with the ship and this game will torpedo Zenimax and their lead boy Myopic Matt. His secret power is hindsight.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 17, 2013, 09:25:07 AM
To be fair, the decision to go ahead and devote resources to this game was made back in 2007. The MMO climate was rather different back then. They then chugged along with development while other MMOs released around them and F2P blew up. I'm sure a year or two ago they looked at what they had with kind of an "eh....." attitude, but were galvanized by the popularity of Skyrim so they just kept going.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 09:47:09 AM
I can't see how they were galvanized by Skyrim. The game isn't even close to the same system, graphics, gameplay, or setting. It should have driven a further nail into the coffin to cut and run. You can take one look at Skyrim, and one look at this, and you realize immediately this will not fly with the people that bought Skyrim.

EDIT: If you look back a year ago, they even had articles to that effect. They wanted to draw in Skyrim people, but they were already apologizing for the systems in place. They knew the combat wouldn't be the same, and they knew this wouldn't work. I think they are releasing this with a loser's mentality of just trying to push some boxes to recoup what will be an agonizing development cost, then shut the doors in less than 12 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 17, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
I think Skyrim was a misstep, personally. I know it took people a long while to warm to Oblivion but I've found it almost impossible to like Skyrim. There are lots of good things in it that Oblivion didn't have (out of the box, that is. I can pretty easily find mods for Oblivion that allow me to do almost everything new to Skyrim), but the skill tree system was horrible and the UI appalling. The game requires even more graphical modding to be able to make characters that don't look like sweary crag-faced kitchen monster Gordon Ramsay than Oblivion required to stop people from looking like moon-eyed six-fingered valley dwellers. The dragons are cool, though. When they work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 10:08:57 AM
While you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree that it was a misstep. I think that's too harsh of a label for a game that broke Steam records for sales. It certainly has flaws, and the UI is a valid one, but that's never been Bethesda's strong suit. It's like they hand UI development to the guy in the back of the office that failed C++ in school.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 17, 2013, 10:43:28 AM
It's a similar issue as we saw with Bioware-Austin.  It's a different group's take on Elder Scrolls.

Didn't they copy the WoW arena almost entirely and raids are capped at ... 40.
There's a lot Wildstar will have that WoW doesn't.  It's not the similarities people should be worried about, it's how they differentiate themselves.

What's publicly known is that they are trying to do some new things.  Like launching with Housing being a focus of the game, a more active combat system, and professions that change up gameplay.

The things that Wildstar adds on top of Warcraft:
Housing
Warplots (i.e. guild housing PVP)
Soft-targeting system (similar to GW2) with action-y combat, "The Telegraph" system with a limited hotbar loadout (deck building)
Dynamic Events
Paths - A layer that is class independent that gives you extra stuff to do in the world not related to leveling your character or class. This could be very cool or very gimmicky in practice.

It does enough to the WOW model to make you think they are actually iterating the process. Of course, if you don't raid and don't do heroic dungeons at level cap, we don't know if they will be sticking you with a shit ton of dailies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 17, 2013, 10:56:38 AM
I have to admit I've never understood the visceral hate people have for the Skyrim UI. I never felt the need to mod it, unlike Oblivion; there's basically one thing in it that doesn't work well, which is the weird bug with conversation option selection at times.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 17, 2013, 11:08:55 AM
In a short sentence: paperdolls are fun but Skyrim sacrificed that for some insane item-listing consoltic bullshit. We have a mouse, we love to use it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on April 17, 2013, 11:16:26 AM
The Skyrim Inventory UI especially is utter shit at least on the PC. It sort of makes sense on the console version but still shit when you are collecting 50 billion goddamn plants for alchemy. Not a huge fan of the 3D perks/skills constellation but it's better than the inventory.

Also, for those saying that TESO video doesn't reflect the same UI as Skyrim, IT HAS THE SKYRIM TARGETING RETICULE!!!! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT???? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?  :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2013, 11:32:31 AM
You may not LIKE skyrim but it was almost the complete opposite of a misstep, it's a game that will be hailed in top tens for a long, long time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on April 17, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
What Skyrim has to do with TESO ? Absofckinglutely nothing besides having Elder Scrolls in the name (which by itself is pretty meaningless unless you are interested purely in lore)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2013, 12:19:12 PM
What Skyrim has to do with TESO ? Absofckinglutely nothing besides having Elder Scrolls in the name (which by itself is pretty meaningless unless you are interested purely in lore)

Well this is kind of the point isn't it? Skyrim was a huge success and games like the recent fallouts and skyrim have been refreshing changes of pace to a genre saturated in grindy jrpg styles.  So what could go wrong? Well, a game could be released ruining all the goodwill that skyrim created to the IP and if the company goes tits up, we won't see good games made any more by them.

All because of a 2007 era bland piece of shit mmo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 12:50:09 PM
The only upside I can see out of this is when it fails, they can distance themselves from the project because Bethesda had nothing to do with it. They specifically created the Zenimax Online studio for this one game so they could insulate themselves from the possible failure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 17, 2013, 12:53:22 PM
Yeah. My (perhaps mistaken) understanding is that Bethesda proper is reasonably well insulated from what might befall ZMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on April 17, 2013, 12:57:12 PM
They can't insulate themselves from damage to the brand though, particularly because many gamers don't know that this is being made by some new studio and not the team that made Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 01:01:55 PM
They can't insulate themselves from damage to the brand though, particularly because many gamers don't know that this is being made by some new studio and not the team that made Skyrim.

Meh, I disagree. This isn't going to stop me from buying the next real ES game. Nor will it deter people who watch these kinds of things. And after this whole crapfest fails, you can bet every dollar in your bank account that Besthesda and it's parent group will go well out of their way to market the next game as a completely different studio with that classic feel. Like Coke Classic instead of New Coke.

Elder Scrolls Classic.

EDIT: I'd start the rebranding now, and release the MMO as "Tamriel Online" to further distance myself from the project and the Elder Scrolls brand name.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 17, 2013, 06:46:42 PM
And after this whole crapfest fails, you can bet every dollar in your bank account that Besthesda and it's parent group will go well out of their way to market the next game as a completely different studio with that classic feel. Like Coke Classic instead of New Coke.

But that's the whole problem.

Nobody greenlit ESO as some side project to the ongoing ES world. The level of investment makes this the ES experience. Until they can't save the PR angle or they (miraculously) bring the game to a level that makes it worthy of being the ES experience, there is no other ES game, because that would dilute the brand messaging. They can't un-call this ESO without severely damaging the potential of something they're hoping to continually monetize.

Yes ES V can be marketed completely separately. But they can't avoid damage to the brand at this point.

None of this may matter to the end users. But I'm quite sure there's brand or marketing people sweating this point (assuming they understand the utter failure this leaked video and PAX coverage has delivered).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on April 17, 2013, 06:59:22 PM
Around studio damage: the real question is about how much money has been poured into TESO. Skyrim made buckets of cash, but video game history indicates that it can only take one flop to cripple a studio and a few flops to cripple a publisher.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 17, 2013, 07:10:17 PM
There's Bethesda, but then there's Zenimax. The latter stands to lose, but the former would be experience little more than a hiccup.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2013, 08:21:21 PM
None of this may matter to the end users.

I think the general consensus would be that it wouldn't matter. They would just have to show videos of the combat in a newer game and you'd immediately know the difference.

This isn't even like a situation with Bioware where they release several disappointing games in a row in addition to a vastly under performing MMO. They set up a silo specifically because they saw this as a gamble.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on April 17, 2013, 10:21:44 PM
some beta forum leaks

http://www.abload.de/img/teso-leakscopyn4a5w.png

So where's the raging and dissatisfaction? Reading that it seems most beta testers actually like the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 17, 2013, 10:24:02 PM
So where's the raging and dissatisfaction? Reading that it seems most beta testers actually like the game.

Did you miss all the comments on linear quests that don't really make sense or being called a hero for killing crabs and rats?

There is an undertone of disappointment in quite a few posts. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on April 17, 2013, 10:46:42 PM
some beta forum leaks

http://www.abload.de/img/teso-leakscopyn4a5w.png

So where's the raging and dissatisfaction? Reading that it seems most beta testers actually like the game.


Are you completely ignorant of how beta official forums work this early on? Usually its just a giant love fest of wanking about how great the special game that those special people are there to test. Those posts sounded like they were planning to attend a funeral compared to the usual dev-fellating you see from closed betas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 07:03:00 AM
"I'm disappointed, but I'm quite hopeful because it's still in beta"
"Overall, the game has a ways to go, and has potential"
"Questing is pretty dreadfully boring and linear...It felt soooooooo unimportant."
"I was using the same weapon and 1-2 skills for 4 hours when I started"
"The graphics were pretty sad...this feels like a single player game with bad graphics and lots of other people running around, getting in the way."
"Combat is not as in depth as many other MMOs I've played...everything here just fells underwhelming and lackluster. Combat seems to have noticeable input delay."
"Quests are not fun."
"How is this an MMO? An MMO is meant to encourage interaction with players. The only interaction I've even had was chatting in /zone about the beta."
"I can't state with any authority that characters are getting shoe-horned into a trinity system, but it seems that way early on...It feels like a typical class system from other MMOs, foreign to TES"
"Melee combat seems underpowered"
"I feel there is a lot of promise in the combat, and a lot I would change about how combat works."
"Voice work is very spotty right now, but I suspect that will get better with time."
"I played a Sorcerer and it just felt so much nicer having that slight lock on for ranged attacks."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 18, 2013, 07:27:32 AM
The absolute best is that people still think a game will change in any meaningful way from beta to release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 07:33:57 AM
The only question in my mind is will this be a WAR type of failure where they bleed out 75% of their users in 6 months, or an APB level of failure where they crash and burn in the first 3 months and have to shut the thing down.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on April 18, 2013, 07:40:58 AM
The only question in my mind is will this be a WAR type of failure where they bleed out 75% of their users in 6 months, or an APB level of failure where they crash and burn in the first 3 months and have to shut the thing down.

Almost certainly the former if I had to put money on it.  That is practically *the* formula for MMOs post launch in the last say, 5-7 years, and I don't see anything here that leads me to believe this will be any different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 07:44:50 AM
The only reason I consider the APB route for this is because the Parent company may want to completely dump the project after a quarter of bad sales, press, and red ink. They have the power to shut down Zenimax Online without their consent, and without really any consequences. Zenimax Online doesn't control any other IP or development at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 18, 2013, 07:48:56 AM
APB got shutdown because the creator folded. I doubt Zenimax would shut down TESO after 3 months just because of poor sales.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on April 18, 2013, 07:51:49 AM
Poor sales is not the only concern; massive negative feedback damaging the ES brand is the other. If TESO isn't making them money hats and risks fucking things up for ES 5, I could see them shutting it down.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 18, 2013, 07:55:25 AM
I think it's a great thing for them that this video leaked. Sure, they can't change enough to make it a great game, but they could have the reality check they have been fanatically avoiding and start putting band-aids where they are needed the most. I also think this thing could turn out fun, eventually, after the initial burning disappointment and a few months of corrective Hartsman-like big patches. But yes, the bad word-of-mouth has officially started and this is the kind of 'mark of infamy' that will probably never go away.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 18, 2013, 07:55:57 AM
Poor sales is not the only concern; massive negative feedback damaging the ES brand is the other. If TESO isn't making them money hats and risks fucking things up for ES 5, I could see them shutting it down.

Maybe before launch, but three months later that damage is already done. Assuming the game has enough income to pay for operational expenses, the best thing to do at that point would be to just let it bumble along and recoup as much of the development expense as possible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 08:08:44 AM
They have 250 employees on payroll right now. Making some assumptions about their average salary, that's probably $15M a year in payroll before you get to other operating costs.

Assuming they get WAR like numbers and sustain an average subscriber base of 300,000 for 6 months, you generate $25M in revenue. Plus you generate the box revenue. At that point, you have to make a decision. Do you keep this thing rolling if your subs look like they are going to crater down to the 100-200k range? Or do you take your box/early sub windfall of $60M, realize that your cash flow will never match up to more than a few million in profit at best for running the thing, and walk away to avoid the PR hit?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 18, 2013, 08:25:58 AM
They have 250 employees on payroll right now. Making some assumptions about their average salary, that's probably $15M a year in payroll before you get to other operating costs.

They aren't going to have 250 employees after launch. Most of those people will either be layed off or put on a new project.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 08:50:17 AM
Note that we haven't even discussed stability issues or bugs at launch. We're going purely off the idea that the game is a bait-and-switch of the TES name alone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 18, 2013, 11:11:44 AM
Poor sales is not the only concern; massive negative feedback damaging the ES brand is the other. If TESO isn't making them money hats and risks fucking things up for ES 5, I could see them shutting it down.

How many bad FF games did it take for people to slow down buying FF games? This won't meaningfully affect the ES brand at all. If the next single player game is bad, then you have an issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 18, 2013, 11:14:16 AM
They have 250 employees on payroll right now. Making some assumptions about their average salary, that's probably $15M a year in payroll before you get to other operating costs.

Assuming they get WAR like numbers and sustain an average subscriber base of 300,000 for 6 months, you generate $25M in revenue. Plus you generate the box revenue. At that point, you have to make a decision. Do you keep this thing rolling if your subs look like they are going to crater down to the 100-200k range? Or do you take your box/early sub windfall of $60M, realize that your cash flow will never match up to more than a few million in profit at best for running the thing, and walk away to avoid the PR hit?

Shutting the game down 3 months in would be a far worse PR hit than *anything* else that they could have happen. Far from avoiding the PR hit, they'd be worsening it. If they fail, they'll transition to F2P. The road map for success doing that is clearly there, with several examples.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 11:29:15 AM
I think you could spin it both ways. You could see it as a completely meltdown disaster, or you could spin it as a company committed to excellence and having a product that didn't live up to that standard.

I believe that a slow burn into F2P creates more dissatisfaction than it solves, simply because it brings into question the amount of resources committed to a failing game that should be put on another iteration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 18, 2013, 11:42:54 AM
Technically SWTOR is actually rather profitable now as a F2P title.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 11:44:49 AM
Technically SWTOR is actually rather profitable now as a F2P title.

I agree, but we have no idea if they've moved into the black after all the initial outlay, which many had estimated in the $300M territory.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on April 18, 2013, 11:47:46 AM
Money wise they could break even I dont know. Heck it could be that SWTOR is after all reasonably profitable.   If there is anything I ever learned about games is that good ones are often net losses (magic carpet, thief, TSW)  and  mediocre ones are becoming milking cows for big publishers (halo , COD,SWTOR)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 18, 2013, 11:54:11 AM
Whenever I see insider people talking about SWTOR, they always say it is doing VERY WELL WINK WINK WINK which I take to mean they're raking it in with the new model.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on April 18, 2013, 12:00:44 PM
Whenever I see insider people talking about SWTOR, they always say it is doing VERY WELL WINK WINK WINK which I take to mean they're raking it in with the new model.

Its a great model for games with shrinking player bases because it is precisely the people who stick around in such a situation that are willing to spend far in excess of the 15 bucks a month they are/were paying.  Free to Play ends up meaning Free to Pay as much as you want for the hardcore of any particular game, which was a previously untapped revenue source. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on April 18, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
So what will suck the most? TESO, NWN or DAOC2? I really can't decide they all seem to be developed so poorly.

Its a fucked up world where FFXIV might end up being the best game of that bunch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 18, 2013, 12:30:54 PM
Technically SWTOR is actually rather profitable now as a F2P title.

I agree, but we have no idea if they've moved into the black after all the initial outlay, which many had estimated in the $300M territory.

That's irrelevent in terms of sunken costs. All that money blown on SWTOR/TESO is already gone. Determining whether to can TESO is purely a comparison of expected costs beyond this point to expected profits.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 12:41:08 PM
It's relevent in planning/estimating for the next title, which is the whole point of this exercise.

More to the point, EA operated SWTOR as part of the Bioware library. They couldn't just shut the thing down for PR reasons, and for reason that they could absorb the loss.

TESO has already been set apart from the parent and the brand developer. It's operating in a different set of circumstances.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 18, 2013, 12:43:26 PM
The next Bethesda title? As many people have pointed out, it really isn't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2013, 12:52:10 PM
There's tax positions and productivity positions to consider beyond just the sunk cost. Obviously if you put something in it's own subsidiary, you are making the actual P/L line easy to distinguish from the rest of your operations. Even if the game can turn a small profit yearly, there may not be a reason to keep it going. It depends on how many people it takes to keep that product turning a profit, and if those people could be used in Bethesda if they shut down the game.

Also, there could be a tax advantage to taking a loss on shutting down operations if you have any major capitalized assets involved in those sunk costs. That loss could then be used to offset income as the consolidated level.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on April 18, 2013, 01:19:17 PM
So what will suck the most? TESO, NWN or DAOC2? I really can't decide they all seem to be developed so poorly.

Its a fucked up world where FFXIV might end up being the best game of that bunch.

NWN isn't NWN.. it's just "Neverwinter."  I expect it's exactly where PWI wants it to be, it doesn't have the marketing or dev budget of a AAA title.  It's a fantasy game pushed out using the Champs engine with some (overly expensive) digital goods you can buy with their proprietary cash. 

It doesn't seem to be marketing itself as a WoW-killer or the next big thing.  "Just another fantasy game"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 18, 2013, 02:06:49 PM
There's tax positions and productivity positions to consider beyond just the sunk cost. Obviously if you put something in it's own subsidiary, you are making the actual P/L line easy to distinguish from the rest of your operations. Even if the game can turn a small profit yearly, there may not be a reason to keep it going. It depends on how many people it takes to keep that product turning a profit, and if those people could be used in Bethesda if they shut down the game.

This. EA is a public company, and it's not like they could pull a Chapter 7 or 11 on just one game. Doesn't work like that financially.

There is the various line items associated with purchasing Elevation Partners. There's the line items associated with the post-purchase capital investments made to support SWTOR (and ME, and DA, and Saboteur maybe), themselves probably split between one-time creative costs, one-time platform development costs, ongoing O&M, payments against guild rate cards, royalties in and out, etc. All of those might still be associated with SWTOR but I doubt it. Instead they probably roll up into however they organize such reporting against the balance sheet.

Because of this, whatever was put into building the thing is probably no longer associated with whatever it's costing to run it. Going from development to live is a lot  more involved than just switching to a smaller team.

More than likely, they've long since separated the sunk costs associated with the subs-based game from the ongoing costs of the live-F2P one. This way, the subs-based version of the game isn't a bookkeeping drag on the F2P one, with those prior costs rolled up under depreciation and amortization somewhere.

As such, my guess is there's an financial model somewhere that literally does present SWTOR as a revenue-positive, possibly even profitable business.

Which is good on them that they could keep it going.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 18, 2013, 03:03:29 PM
So what will suck the most? TESO, NWN or DAOC2? I really can't decide they all seem to be developed so poorly.

Its a fucked up world where FFXIV might end up being the best game of that bunch.
NWN will be the best of the three by far.  It's a simple game, but it's actually not bad for a little mindless fun.  DAoC2 won't get made, so TESO wins the suck contest by default.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 19, 2013, 04:38:52 AM
I'd switch those two for my tastes. I'm invested enough in Elder Scrolls lore enough* that I could enjoy a mediocre product if it was given to me as a gift. For, like, a month. NWN isn't cutting it, I don't think.

But, no, DAOC2 is soooooo not getting made. Mark Jacobs would ruin it, anyways.



*I'm really not rooting for TESO to fail. REALLY really. I don't really root for too many games to fail. I love Elder Scrolls. A well-done TESO would have me for years. This isn't it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 19, 2013, 09:54:00 AM
NO NO NO!  I want this game to be wonderful.  I love Bethesda games and I want it to be funny like Fallout New Vegas, too.  I am heartbroken.  I know, I should have read the rest of this thread because it's already a million years old  but I only recently got something in the mail about a beta.  And what about The Evil Within?  Is that going to be4 awful, too?  God, I hope not.  The trailer looks so fucking good and very very ceepy.  Like Silent Hill creepy. 

Ok.  Panic attack over.  At least tomorrow is Kush Day and a reason to celebrate God and Nature.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 19, 2013, 04:59:23 PM
This isn't a Bethseda game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 19, 2013, 05:20:25 PM
Oh. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on April 19, 2013, 06:35:47 PM
/hug


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on April 19, 2013, 08:37:46 PM
Neither is Fallout: New Vegas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on April 19, 2013, 09:42:34 PM
I still have some hope for the game. Unless things have changed or I grossly misinterpreted things I read a while ago, I like how they're approaching PvP. Higher levels won't necessarily be able to steamroll lower levels. Sure, there will be an advantage but several lowbies have the chance to take down a higher level. That's what I hate about WOW. I like the idea of world PvP but I don't like that a 90 can just roll up and curb stomp a 30. What's the fun in that? I've never felt the need to massacre players far below my level as it just seems unfair. I'd be happy with either the level range that EQ had for PvP or the direction that TESO seems to be taking with level scaling.

Of course I could be completely wrong in my assumptions as I usually am. I'll still be giving the game a serious look as I'm a sucker for anything Elder Scrolls. Arena hooked me in '94 and Daggerfall sealed the deal in '96.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 20, 2013, 02:51:58 PM
Neither is Fallout: New Vegas.

WTF am I talking about then?  Fuck me!  I've gone insane! 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on April 20, 2013, 10:40:35 PM
Neither is Fallout: New Vegas.

WTF am I talking about then?  Fuck me!  I've gone insane! 

Bethesda released New Vegas, but it was developed by Obsidian. You know, the guys that made Kotor 2, NWN 2 (and in a former life: Fallout 1 and 2).

Everything is alright, no need to worry!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 21, 2013, 07:18:57 AM
Thanks, Cal.  I was worried I was getting the early onset Old Timers! 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on April 21, 2013, 01:35:08 PM
When you get it, you won't worry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 21, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
True.  Everyone else gets to worry and I have a feeling I be one of the sort who wanders off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on April 21, 2013, 10:07:06 PM
Everything is shit in the MMO scene.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 22, 2013, 06:26:03 AM
It's weird.  Up until a few years ago, I knew everything that was going on with games, especially MMOs. I even knew a lot of the people making them.  Now, I don't bother finding out anything except how to play them and whether or not people here say it's good.  I still know a lot of the people making them but I know them mostly in a non-game way.  The two years or so I spent not playing games at all has made me game-dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on April 22, 2013, 06:39:53 AM
Far as i am concerned, all that makes you one of the lucky ones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on May 12, 2013, 01:13:11 PM
I finally got around to actually reading about this game (and not just ingesting snark from the forums).

Judging by the website, this IS Daoc2- I had no idea the game was pvp-centered at all.  The website really plays up the three-faction pvp, "become the emperor through pvp" angle. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 12, 2013, 04:33:53 PM
Not trying to snark you, but that is really old news. Literally first page of this thread.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on May 13, 2013, 05:27:21 PM
Nobody reads threads when they are only a page long.  They generally aren't worth the trouble until at least page 20.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soukyan on May 14, 2013, 08:08:31 AM
I finally got around to actually reading about this game (and not just ingesting snark from the forums).

Judging by the website, this IS Daoc2- I had no idea the game was pvp-centered at all.  The website really plays up the three-faction pvp, "become the emperor through pvp" angle. 

Yep. Mark Jacobs' attempt at Camelot Unchained is likely to be too little, too late if Bethesda can manage to make ESO a hit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 14, 2013, 09:30:46 AM
Nothing about this game gives any indication this will be a hit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 14, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
Nothing about this game gives any indication this will be a hit.

The leaked video killed any interest I had.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 14, 2013, 09:45:56 AM
If they do realm wars at least semi close to Daoc it will be a hit for a certain segment of the population.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 14, 2013, 10:18:41 AM
If they do realm wars at least semi close to Daoc it will be a hit for a certain segment of the population.

I think Nebu declaring his dead interest speaks volumes on that fact.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 15, 2013, 09:45:34 AM
I think Nebu declaring his dead interest speaks volumes on that fact.

I would rather play a vaporware Kickstarter abomination from Mark Jacobs than try to deal with the combat mechanics in this game in a PvP situation. 

Does that make my stance clearer?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soukyan on May 15, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
I think Nebu declaring his dead interest speaks volumes on that fact.

I would rather play a vaporware Kickstarter abomination from Mark Jacobs than try to deal with the combat mechanics in this game in a PvP situation. 

Does that make my stance clearer?

As a fellow DAoC fanboy, where is this leaked video? I need to see if it kills my hopes and dreams as well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 15, 2013, 10:08:37 AM
As a fellow DAoC fanboy, where is this leaked video? I need to see if it kills my hopes and dreams as well.

To the best of my knowledge it got yanked.  Perhaps someone has another link?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 15, 2013, 10:19:04 AM

As a fellow DAoC fanboy, where is this leaked video? I need to see if it kills my hopes and dreams as well.

Let me set the scene for you:  Visualize graphics, gameplay and interface similar to WoW circa 2005 only browner and less interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2013, 12:16:06 PM
No, it makes less sense than that.  Guy had to target when running forward but running backward/ facing away everything was auto-aim/ tab-target hit chance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on June 10, 2013, 09:56:40 PM
Soo.. TESO to Xbone and PS4 and release date pushed to Spring 2014. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Brennik on June 11, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Soo.. TESO to Xbone and PS4 and release date pushed to Spring 2014. 

Well, at least I don't have to keep my hopes up any longer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 11, 2013, 03:12:39 AM
 if anybody cares. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYoQdnAaOwE3 Trailer[/url)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 11, 2013, 04:01:36 AM
Boring, horrible trailer. Same old, same old.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2013, 09:28:04 AM
The faster they just release and murder this thing, the better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 11, 2013, 10:26:29 AM
Still going to buy it and treat it as a single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 11, 2013, 01:33:33 PM
Still going to buy it and treat it as a single player game.

Find a copy of Kingdoms of Amalur: THe Reckoning and save yourself time and money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MrHat on June 11, 2013, 05:17:53 PM
Soo.. TESO to Xbone and PS4 and release date pushed to Spring 2014. 

cross with PC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on June 11, 2013, 05:30:28 PM
Soo.. TESO to Xbone and PS4 and release date pushed to Spring 2014. 

cross with PC?


Unclear, or at least I haven't seen anything about same server.  I would assume yes, since if they can do it with Defiance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 11, 2013, 06:05:47 PM
Still going to buy it and treat it as a single player game.

I dunno. At this point, Wildstar looks like a better single player game.

ESO feels like a byproduct of people who make decisions almost entirely based on press releases. They seemingly nixed anything people like about the ES series, and designing as if they started development in 2003 and then spent the following two redesigning as much as they could in response to how much WoW changed things.

They'd make more money building a co-op Skyrim.

But the fight for this IP as an MMO has been going on so long, I guess they had no choice but to make something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 11, 2013, 10:06:39 PM
Maybe they'll let me play as a giant so I can milk the mammoths and churn it into butter.  From what I've seen so far, that sounds more fun than anything else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on June 12, 2013, 07:03:30 AM
Any chance of this releasing as F2P on PC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on June 12, 2013, 07:35:21 AM
Any chance of this releasing as F2P on PC?

This game will not succeed with a sub. Not for long anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 12, 2013, 08:19:41 AM
This game will not succeed

Agreed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 12, 2013, 08:39:16 AM
I have a feeling that this will crash harder/faster than TOR.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 12, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
if anybody cares.
 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHYoQdnAaOwE3 Trailer[/url)

Just does not seem right. Creatures standing around waiting for you to kill them, then 7 minutes of him standing in one place while users stand in one place swinning 2 feet away from them while the monster does not react.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on June 12, 2013, 12:23:09 PM
Sadly this is the first MMORPG my wife is interested in playing since TOR (she loves elder scrolls), so I will mostly likely be wasting at least a few months playing this.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 12, 2013, 09:24:28 PM
Opt for divorce imo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 12, 2013, 10:56:55 PM
The trebuchet firing in the RVR part of the trailer pretty much ensured I will at least try it to see how it doesn't live up to my RVR needs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 13, 2013, 07:03:51 AM
Honestly, after seeing the First person game play, it does look like it feels just like the other titles in the series, with some exceptions in the AI especially, things just kind of stand there. I just wonder how much MMO underpinnings it will have. For me personally, the MMO underpinnings, like really shallow quests to fill time, are what have killed me with some some of the newer MMOs that do offer more progressive things. For me it really undercuts the experience for me.

I for one hope that Questing is nearly identical to the rest of the series, and not set up like a typical MMO. Buy this I mean I hope its not fields of mobs standing around blocking travel. It needs to be like Eldar scrolls, with meaningful random encounters instead of a large quantity of shit to kill for nearly no reason other then "leveling" or becouse they are in your way.

I'm not going to hold my breath though, I can see that being a difficult thing to do when everyone is a hero and "the one" in the world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 17, 2013, 12:14:04 PM
The less "online" this game's play is and the more it mirrors a singleplayer experience, the better it will probably do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2013, 12:39:57 PM
Why does everyone focus on the first person thing? Wow had that, Everquest had that.  Hell, I'm pretty sure most mmos do, but nobody ever uses it because it's a dumb way to play.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 17, 2013, 02:50:47 PM
Why does everyone focus on the first person thing? Wow had that, Everquest had that.  Hell, I'm pretty sure most mmos do, but nobody ever uses it because it's a dumb way to play.

Because it's the way most people play the Elder Scrolls games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 17, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
But it's basically standard in MMOs already.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 17, 2013, 03:21:10 PM
I want to play MMO's in first person as that was the mode I played EQ in. However, not one MMO since EQ has been playable at all in first person, mostly because they don't show your arms swinging the damn sword. So you have no idea when you attack or don't. So I've played them all in 3rd person. But really, you should experience an "immersive fantasy world" in first person.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 17, 2013, 06:13:35 PM
Wow had that, Everquest had that.  Hell, I'm pretty sure most mmos do

No, not even close.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on June 18, 2013, 09:48:49 AM
I want to play MMO's in first person as that was the mode I played EQ in. However, not one MMO since EQ has been playable at all in first person, mostly because they don't show your arms swinging the damn sword. So you have no idea when you attack or don't. So I've played them all in 3rd person. But really, you should experience an "immersive fantasy world" in first person.

I played EQ in first person. I started out with WOW playing it in first person, but there were camera issues and issues with being too close to mob aggro ranges and then they introduced standing in fire mechanics and, unless you constantly moved the camera around like a crack addled mountain dew swilling insomniac with ADHD, there was no way you could be successful in group/raid play. Easier just to scroll out and use the camera for situational awareness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 18, 2013, 01:46:54 PM
But it's basically standard in MMOs already.
No, not really. Many of them have first person mode, but most aren't played that way. And really, EQ1 was played that way mostly because that's how it launched. But for the last almost-decade, it's mostly been third person, for a variety of reasons from wanting to see the customizations you made to wanting to see the environment behind you during combat.

This is why the ES series feels different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 18, 2013, 03:50:23 PM
But it's basically standard in MMOs already.
No, not really. Many of them have first person mode, but most aren't played that way. And really, EQ1 was played that way mostly because that's how it launched. But for the last almost-decade, it's mostly been third person, for a variety of reasons from wanting to see the customizations you made to wanting to see the environment behind you during combat.

This is why the ES series feels different.

That's my point exactly, you can already play first person but you won't because for a large variety of reasons playing in first person sucks.  I seriously doubt you are not going to want to see the customizations you made in TESO, or the environment around you.  What can they possibly do different that won't make first person suck? show your arms? I fail to see how that solves absolutely any of the problems playing an MMO in first person has.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 18, 2013, 05:21:22 PM
But for the last almost-decade, it's mostly been third person, for a variety of reasons from wanting to see the customizations you made to wanting to see the environment behind you during combat.




I tried going back for the f2p conversion and I'd have to say anyone playing it in 3rd person loves handicapping themselves because EQ in 3rd person is still retardedly awkward and was obviously never tuned to be played that way. Just like an Elder Scrolls game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 18, 2013, 05:25:41 PM
I think they patched that in when I was still playing. Maybe Ykesha era? I seem to recall trying it once and thinking "why"?

That's my point exactly, you can already play first person but you won't because for a large variety of reasons playing in first person sucks.  I seriously doubt you are not going to want to see the customizations you made in TESO, or the environment around you.  What can they possibly do different that won't make first person suck? show your arms? I fail to see how that solves absolutely any of the problems playing an MMO in first person has.

Oh, now I get ya. Well, the odd thing for me is that in the ES series, first person has worked fine for me. So it kinda comes down to whether one jumps from ES to ESO or from MMO to ESO. They claim it'll have both (it may already for all I know), but they designed first person first.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 18, 2013, 06:42:27 PM
First-person camera is the reason I never got into EQ1. I was playing for about 20m after heavy recommendation from some friends, when I got killed by an ant. Except the on-death camera zoomed out and I had like 4 more behind me that I didn't know about. Between that shitty camera and the lag (shitty computer, 56k internet) I uninstalled and went back to MUDs for a few more years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: pants on June 18, 2013, 08:12:25 PM
First-person camera is the reason I never got into EQ1.

Funny - for me first-person was one of the big reasons why EQ really grabbed me.  It was done 'right', as distinct from WoW etc, where their first person felt 'wrong' (and no, I dont know what the differences are, I just know one worked and one didn't), and so being in first person made me feel more like I was there.  Monsters killing me from behind felt right, since my char was standing in the forest, and not magically viewing everything from 6 foot behind my shoulder.

So, different strokes etc.  However another fantasy MMO with a good first person would really draw me in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on June 18, 2013, 09:02:31 PM

First person can be very immersive, and EQ generally moved slower. With pretty distinct audio queues if you were getting suddenly munched.

Not so much in WoW which is faster and there's more tactical elements to track in the end-game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 19, 2013, 06:42:14 AM
but nobody ever uses it because it's a dumb way to play.

That's because they way MMOs mostly play, is dumb.

I think its quite incomparable to compare Wow's first person to that of ES series or even say, Hexen like dungeon crawlers. I think your being a bit dishonest in your comparison as well. Typical MMO combat does not care about swings and misses, or follow through if you miss and your target sidesteps. People have already given other reasons, such as no hands, misaligned cameras and the immersion that comes with a sort of tunnel vision first person creates.

But you are right, with the way AI, grouping and pathing in your typical MMO is, playing in first person is pointless. But that's because of the greater design of the MMO, not because of the camera view.

You want REAL rouge like activities in a MMO? You can't with orbital cameras. Tab target orbital cam with MMO"RPG" style combat and mob placement, Intentional AI ineptitude, Tab Targeting, is simply not comparable to a RPG built to be played in first person. Especially when one is built on the quantity of encounters, instead of the quality.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sky on June 19, 2013, 07:27:28 AM
I liked EQ in first person. Not just because their third-person camera and mechanics sucked, either. It was quite visceral, and as mentioned, the audio cues with surround sound were pretty good.

The last couple months I played, I did have a second box and used third person camera for the healbot so I could see if something jumped it easier.

edit - and things like doors and halls are now scaled to assume you have a third person camera, the claustrophobia of EQ wouldn't work in a modern mmo that wasn't designed ground-up to account for a first person perspective. Guk wouldn't have been nearly as atmospheric if it weren't for the tight cramped passages, and you need headroom for the camera in a third-person perspective.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 19, 2013, 07:32:58 AM
Yep, orbital cams partly lead to the "epic scale" of areas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on June 19, 2013, 11:38:05 PM
Demons/Dark Souls would not be good with a 1st person camera. And they are the absolute embodiment of the type of combat you're describing.

The more challenging you make the combat (i.e. not tab-targetting WoW-esque MMO combat) the more a 1st person viewpoint is a limitation in my opinion. Playing a game through a fixed viewpoint is nothing like how we see in the real world. Our vision is nearly 180 degrees but with large variation in fidelity across that range. We're very sensitive to visual and audible cues that could indicate things outside our direct field of quality vision, which is just not the case in a video game.

I hated the lack of a 3rd person view in MWO. It was exacerbated by both poor scaling of the 1st person view which made it feel like the mechs were about 2m tall, and a bad radar with no customisations, e.g. size of the UI element and range covered.

Edit: this thread is about TESO, not MWO, oops. I've got almost no interest in TESO anyway, but a fixed 1st person view would guarantee I'd never even look at it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 20, 2013, 05:50:19 AM
Yes, but the point being. 3ed person orbital cam in MMO's, combined with the combat systems are a far cry from first person RPG's and the non-orbital 3ed person games like dark souls. No one ever calmed it was purely the view point that made all the difference, Except for Threash.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on June 20, 2013, 07:02:50 AM
With or without a 1st person option this game will be a disaster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 20, 2013, 08:47:45 AM
I don't have high hopes. But I am quite burned out personally in MMO underpinnings that wont die.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on June 20, 2013, 04:45:04 PM
All the articles I've been reading lately are much more optimistic and complimentary than they were even a couple months ago.  I'm keeping an eye on this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 21, 2013, 11:35:28 AM
The blowjobs have begun.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 21, 2013, 01:03:37 PM
The articles are getting better because the pre-release slush money is making the rounds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 21, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
ey, buddy. come over here. ey. I got some eights and nines here. flash the right kind of cabbage, I know a guy at IGN who can get you some tens. whaddya say. no harm in lookin, pal


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on June 21, 2013, 06:36:11 PM
Ehh I recently was cleaning out my torrents and  saw that gameplay vid again. -Ehhh it will take a miracle to turn this into anything remotely good


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on June 21, 2013, 11:04:53 PM
If I were a coked-up game developer these days, I may purposefully release really bad alpha footage so when the real stuff hits the fan everything looks amazing by comparison.  Then I'd die from a heart attack after snorting heroin off a midget's ass.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 22, 2013, 02:40:16 AM
NGI gave this the best MMO award, other candidates were The Crew (MMO Racing Game) and Final Fantasy XIV.
MMOHUT on the other hand awarded Archeage, which NGI didn't even consider, as Overall Best MMO.

You know, whatever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 22, 2013, 04:54:11 PM
jeeeeeesus i am still so sad to see people i know working on this game and SUPER MEGA EXCITED about it

gwah


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 22, 2013, 05:48:50 PM
Well as we know now, even when I suspected otherwise, no MMO ever really dies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on June 23, 2013, 02:23:54 PM
Well as we know now, even when I suspected otherwise, no MMO ever really dies.

Except Fury  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 23, 2013, 03:02:27 PM
And Auto Assault, and Motor City Online. Oh hey, Star Wars Galaxies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 23, 2013, 03:13:23 PM
SWG lived on for years as an emulator didn't it? Or something?

I didn't even know the other two existed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on June 23, 2013, 04:01:04 PM
And Auto Assault, and Motor City Online. Oh hey, Star Wars Galaxies.

And Earth and Beyond, and City of Heroes  (:cry:).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on June 23, 2013, 04:18:27 PM
And Matrix Online and The Sims Online (oops, sorry, I meant "EA Land") and Seed and...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on June 23, 2013, 07:45:26 PM
jeeeeeesus i am still so sad to see people i know working on this game and SUPER MEGA EXCITED about it

gwah

Heh, I know how ya feel. :)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 23, 2013, 08:30:31 PM
At least they are working on something which, no matter if this game manages to suck as hard as we can only predict it will, will be completely competently done or even pretty awesome.

It just won't matter in the least.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 24, 2013, 05:36:44 PM
At least they are working

That right there. No matter what us external armchair critics think, these people are being paid to work on something and they're enjoying it. Are they thinking that in five years their creation might not "matter"? Maybe, and only in the esoteric since. Because they're skill as a coder or character modeller or level designer or producer is not going to be judged based on how many units ESO sells nor how many other games knock off their ideas.

So good on them for willingly getting paid probably peanuts because they're following their passion.

Even if I doubt I'll buy their passion at launch  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 24, 2013, 07:00:13 PM
I would agree with that sentiment if it were anything but the gaming industry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 25, 2013, 11:16:58 PM
They are the sorts of dudes who are legitimately going to be crushed ifwhen this game sucks and fails. They're the doe-eyed dreamers yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 26, 2013, 06:27:23 AM
They've obviously never heard of this place then.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 26, 2013, 06:12:53 PM
They are the sorts of dudes who are legitimately going to be crushed ifwhen this game sucks and fails. They're the doe-eyed dreamers yet.
Again: why? With all the kinds of skills needed to make these games work, not everyone involved is deeply and emotionally attached to the individual game. When I said "these people are being paid to work on something and they're enjoying it", I meant they are enjoying the work they are doing. But their skill could be transitive to any video game.

In other words, just because they enjoy working on ESO as, say, a character modeller, that doesn't mean they'll be all sad and angry when they need to leave to become a character modeller on Wildstar or EQ Next or, shit, Titanfall, Destiny, random DLC, some Unity thing, whatever.

Yea there'll be people who will be disappointed, and maybe some will burn out too. But that's true of any industry that requires commitment. I swear, most of the emotion I see going from the announcement, rise, launch and eventual fading of an MMO comes from the gamers.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 26, 2013, 07:12:33 PM
Because they're skill as a coder or character modeller or level designer or producer is not going to be judged based on how many units ESO sells nor how many other games knock off their ideas.

Being associated with a successful AAA game is very helpful in the gaming industry, and being associated with a low quality flop can be harmful, regardless of the quality of work of the individual.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 26, 2013, 08:15:34 PM
They are the sorts of dudes who are legitimately going to be crushed ifwhen this game sucks and fails. They're the doe-eyed dreamers yet.
Again: why? With all the kinds of skills needed to make these games work, not everyone involved is deeply and emotionally attached to the individual game. When I said "these people are being paid to work on something and they're enjoying it", I meant they are enjoying the work they are doing. But their skill could be transitive to any video game.

In other words, just because they enjoy working on ESO as, say, a character modeller, that doesn't mean they'll be all sad and angry when they need to leave to become a character modeller on Wildstar or EQ Next or, shit, Titanfall, Destiny, random DLC, some Unity thing, whatever.

Yea there'll be people who will be disappointed, and maybe some will burn out too. But that's true of any industry that requires commitment. I swear, most of the emotion I see going from the announcement, rise, launch and eventual fading of an MMO comes from the gamers.  :awesome_for_real:

Or you know, maybe we can just assume for Samprimary that he's right about how the people he actually knows are going to react? This is a weird post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 26, 2013, 08:30:53 PM
It Depends on who you ask. No one wants a game they worked on to be seen as terrible. However, games are made by a cooperation between people and various disciplines, you normally can't fault a trench worker for an entire presentation. Most, are also gamers too.

No one ever sets out to make a bad game, technically, or otherwise.
Pure gamers? Can Cheer, and manifest though shear will and Internets for a bad game. Even if its not, they can make it so.

The "Developers are my enemy, how dare they make a game I may enjoy" mentality has always bugged me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 26, 2013, 08:44:17 PM
The "Developers are my enemy, how dare they make a game I may enjoy" mentality has always bugged me.

More often it's the developers are my enemy because they are changing something I did enjoy. This is great example of that principle. They are taking the Elder Scrolls name and slapping it on something that's completely changed from the game we all like.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 27, 2013, 11:47:57 AM
The far majority of devs in the MMORPG world are clueless. Half of them are clickers, so I can see where they are coming from. Just like when Wildstar said, "Factions can't cross-communication because we feel it creates TENSION." Dumbasses.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 27, 2013, 07:16:57 PM

Or you know, maybe we can just assume for Samprimary that he's right about how the people he actually knows are going to react? This is a weird post.

Well that's fine if this is just about those people. But I read it as a larger statement about the idea that the emotions gamers bring to games match the emotions of the game creators. I have not seen that to be the case most of the time.

But if it's just about these people he knows, then sure, not worth debating because he knows them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 27, 2013, 08:20:02 PM
naaaaaaaaaah, if I had to describe the average person working in the game industry right now, it would be more on the cynical end too.

It's just those dudes. They are really just like WOW THIS GAME IS GOING TO BE SO AWESOME :3 :3 and they think their devs are amazing and game totally going to be the Next Big Thing aaaand



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on June 28, 2013, 06:54:08 AM
I wonder what would happen if a dev house hired a dozen very experienced IBM/Oracle/Sun hard core programmers instead of gaming programmers?  There would have to be a very good layer of gaming people to manage the work so it didn't solely focus on efficiency, but it always struck me as strange that the programmers were also the idea guys.  They should be implementation only.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on June 28, 2013, 12:08:20 PM
I wonder what would happen if a dev house hired a dozen very experienced IBM/Oracle/Sun hard core programmers instead of gaming programmers? 

They'd cost money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 28, 2013, 12:45:13 PM
They'd expect to be paid like you are running an actual business. Not a brodude factory of failure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 28, 2013, 02:50:49 PM
They'd also probably leave once they realized you weren't running an actual business, even if you did pay them like you were.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on July 01, 2013, 03:02:42 AM
I wonder what would happen if a dev house hired a dozen very experienced IBM/Oracle/Sun hard core programmers instead of gaming programmers?  There would have to be a very good layer of gaming people to manage the work so it didn't solely focus on efficiency, but it always struck me as strange that the programmers were also the idea guys.  They should be implementation only.

Hartsman made a point of saying that the console games programmers he used were a lot more focused and efficient than the PC programmers he was used to using, given that console developers were much more used to the idea that if you didn't deliver on time and on budget, you didn't have a job any more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on July 01, 2013, 07:35:27 AM
I wonder what would happen if a dev house hired a dozen very experienced IBM/Oracle/Sun hard core programmers instead of gaming programmers?  There would have to be a very good layer of gaming people to manage the work so it didn't solely focus on efficiency, but it always struck me as strange that the programmers were also the idea guys.  They should be implementation only.

In my experience it's not at all true that the programmers are the idea guys.  Indeed, I would say a major problem with the place I worked was that they weren't involved nearly enough in design discussion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on July 03, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
When I went to college, the lecturers said that programmers were seen as more the blue collar worker types, just charged with turning the design into code. We wont require you to think, just code!!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 03, 2013, 04:42:17 PM
If they're pure programmers, thinking isn't high on their priority list...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on July 18, 2013, 03:43:30 PM
well turns out I know two entirely unrelated groups working on the game. WHEE


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on July 19, 2013, 11:13:35 AM
well turns out I know two entirely unrelated groups working on the game. WHEE

Always a good sign! :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2013, 11:25:30 AM
Make sure to have hugs, booze, and resume advice ready when this thing launches.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on July 22, 2013, 04:38:01 AM
Wouldn't I want to provide that regardless of outcome?

I should add a masseuse too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on August 05, 2013, 11:08:50 AM
So, what did you guys think of the Quakecon playthrough?  I wasn't surprised, cause it looked just like the 45 minute beta leak that was on torrent.

Graphically it looks fine to me - nothing revolutionary.  I'm hoping RVR is good.

Oh, it's here if you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXJ0dwhijSg


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 05, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
First footage I've seen, and I think it looks a lot better than I was led to believe from the descriptions of the leaked footage. More interested in this game than I was before. (Still mad I can't play an Imperial.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on August 05, 2013, 02:11:02 PM
I'm somewhat interested in any new MMO that offers large-scale pvp like rvr. ESO promises that but I haven't heard anything solid on how it looks to be doing in that department yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on August 05, 2013, 02:40:44 PM
That still looks like it should be competing with age of conan to me, not Wildstar or Guild Wars 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on August 21, 2013, 07:46:54 AM
announced officially: subscription model


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on August 21, 2013, 07:55:37 AM
Good luck to them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on August 21, 2013, 07:59:43 AM
Errgh, this is going to be horrendous.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dren on August 21, 2013, 08:05:00 AM
announced officially: subscription model


Hah, fail.  Start a contest on how long after launch they go F2P?  I'll try it then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on August 21, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
Baffled they didn't take the GW2 route.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 21, 2013, 10:29:05 AM
Baffled they didn't take the GW2 route.

This would have been a better option for the way this title is being developed.  I agree.  Fans of the Elder Scrolls brand would be more likely to pay a box cost than a recurring sub.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on August 21, 2013, 10:37:27 AM
Baffled they didn't take the GW2 route.

This would have been a better option for the way this title is being developed.  I agree.  Fans of the Elder Scrolls brand would be more likely to pay a box cost than a recurring sub.

Are they doing a pure sub model, or box+subs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on August 21, 2013, 11:06:19 AM
Baffled they didn't take the GW2 route.

This would have been a better option for the way this title is being developed.  I agree.  Fans of the Elder Scrolls brand would be more likely to pay a box cost than a recurring sub.

Are they doing a pure sub model, or box+subs?

Box + subs + Console Subscription required (For PS4/Xbox One)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on August 21, 2013, 11:38:09 AM
Yep, fuck a bunch of this one. Need a double flipping the bid emoticon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on August 21, 2013, 11:46:53 AM
This is going to be a case study.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on August 21, 2013, 11:59:09 AM
When is this due out? I need to make sure I have stocked up on my  :popcorn:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on August 21, 2013, 01:01:55 PM
Let's set sail for fail. (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/029/364/failboat2.jpg?1318992465)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2013, 01:19:08 PM
One year from release I'd love to see this vs wildstar to see if one or both switch to F2P.

I'll put money on this going F2P and wildstar being subs still.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on August 21, 2013, 04:23:55 PM
How much money?  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on August 21, 2013, 08:43:58 PM

Good luck with that. And I thought I had no interest before this news.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on August 22, 2013, 04:16:18 AM
Baffled they didn't take the GW2 route.

So much this.  If any community would be willing to pay 3 dollars for a pixelated jaunty hat it would be the Elder Scrolls fanatics. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 22, 2013, 09:48:08 AM
How much money?  :grin:

$15 game on steam of your choice.  1year after release ESO is F2P and Wildstar is not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on August 22, 2013, 10:14:15 AM
So PS4 gets the exclusive open beta to this?  Why does that not seem like a good thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on August 22, 2013, 05:19:56 PM
Is anyone really put off by subscriptions if you enjoy the game?  Vendors almost always include a free month with the box so you rarely even pay the subscription if its horrible.  I can't tell you how many f2p games of late I have enjoyed enough that I would love to have the option to pay the sub so I could enjoy cash shop goodies without having to dole out cash on a whim.  I get *why* in 2013 a subscription model seems to indicate massive failure, but lets be fair, if the game is good, a subscription model is absolutely the best model for us, the gamers.  That being said, if it sucks who cares what payment model it has.  


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on August 22, 2013, 06:02:38 PM
It's all perception. If TESO turns out awesome, we'll suck it up and pay the subs fee, because we're all jonesing for a game good enough for us to want to pay it.

For now it's another nail in the coffin of interest for what continues to look like a generic MMO rather than a good persistent world or small-multiplayer version of the Skyrim we want.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on August 22, 2013, 08:53:15 PM
Is anyone really put off by subscriptions if you enjoy the game?

That's a pretty heavy "if" for me.  Not that the game will automatically suck, but I'm hesitant to try it when it's sub based.  I always feel more like I'm "renting" the game than I do in an F2P game, where it feels more like I'm buying sparkle ponies or whatever and even if I don't pay any more ever, I still feel like I "own" that content.  Paying a sub means I have to keep re-evaluating if I'm getting my money's worth, and that means that all my other games (including single player games) are competing with it in a way that they aren't with an F2P title.  Being asked to pay a box fee on top of that is enough to encourage me to wait for others to take the plunge first.

If I pay $100 on skins for LoL or Dota, and I never spend another cent, I can still access that content for however long the game is running.  If I pay $100 on a sub for WoW and then cancel, I can't access anything.  Everything I spent on the game, including the original box price, is money wasted.

If it turns out the game is mind blowingly awesome, I'll probably buy it anyway, sure, but I'm not going to play early adopter on this one, I don't think.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 22, 2013, 08:59:28 PM
Everything I spent on the game, including the original box price, is money wasted.

I find this attitude really weird. If you go to see a play or a movie, is that money automatically wasted? I mean, you can't go see it again without paying. Entertainment dollars don't buy things, they buy time spent enjoying yourself.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on August 22, 2013, 09:12:07 PM
Yeah my thinking is just so completely different.  I'm prepared to spend money on my hobby and I realize there are a number of ways the industry has of charging me.  When I pay into a sub game I feel like i'm joining a club...a commitment to invest in that world.  I pay a standard fee and get a standard service, hopefully.

 F2P's, on the other hand, are big elaborate marketing ploys where they try to trick me into believing I'm playing a game, when really, I'm just walking through a flea market where everywhere I turn there is an offer to spend more money. Granted, this is my perception, but in a perfect world I'd much rather pay a sub for a quality game, then pay nothing for half of one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on August 22, 2013, 09:39:20 PM
Everything I spent on the game, including the original box price, is money wasted.

I find this attitude really weird. If you go to see a play or a movie, is that money automatically wasted? I mean, you can't go see it again without paying. Entertainment dollars don't buy things, they buy time spent enjoying yourself.

It's hard to make broad generalizations like that.  Movies aren't really analogous to games in every respect.  For example, a movie is non-interactive, while a game is interactive, so killing my ability to interact with a game is a bigger deal than killing my ability to watch a movie for the tenth time.  And subscription games are competing for market space with non-subscription games, while restricting your ability to play more than non-sub games, and costing more than non-sub games, so unless they can offer more value (and they have a lot of trouble doing this consistently) why would I play them?  Theaters don't really have that problem.

And if I like a movie, I'll generally get it on DVD anyway, rather than shelling out for theater tickets again and again.  

I'm not saying that renting entertainment (or paying to go to a theater) is always bad, but if I had to choose between being able to have fun for a month or being able to have fun whenever I want, in the absence of any other considerations I'm generally going to choose the second option.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on August 22, 2013, 11:07:57 PM
I find this attitude really weird. If you go to see a play or a movie, is that money automatically wasted? I mean, you can't go see it again without paying. Entertainment dollars don't buy things, they buy time spent enjoying yourself.

I wouldn't say it's that weird for a genre that revolves around accruing 'virtual wealth', it's obvious a movie/play/concert is simply about the experience. Most MMO's go to great lengths to make you feel a somewhat long term investment through the character you 'own' and the goodies he collects.

I get the logic of what you're saying, but it just doesn't feel the same to me and it seems I'm not alone in this. It does feel weird to me as well now (after all the F2P/B2P alternatives) to pay a full AAA price for the box knowing I'll then have to sub as well to keep playing.
Maybe it's irrational and I would just waste that money on stuff which arguably gives me less enjoyment per € spent, but hey this is my free time, I reserve the right to be an irrational self-entitled fool; aka: a customer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 23, 2013, 05:56:46 AM
It's not weird at all.  Sub-based MMOs sell "persistence" as a feature and then cut you off from the items you "bought" (SparklePony!) because you stopped paying for the sub.

Movie analogy is completely missing the selling point of SparklePony in this context Ingmar.  You don't go to a movie and buy a SparklePony.  You don't pay a movie house a sub.

...

In fact, I've become so disgusted with the "games is same as movie" conversation that I'm shunning everyone that brings it up.  You are now shunned.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 23, 2013, 07:19:21 AM
In fact, I've become so disgusted with the "games is same as movie" conversation that I'm shunning everyone that brings it up. 

How about games as art?   :grin:

/ducks


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 23, 2013, 07:43:57 AM
 :mob:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on August 23, 2013, 09:27:33 AM
Here's my problem with the subscription part of the MMOG's.

I've been playing the same goddamn MMO since Everquest, only with a different skin. The only experience I can consider "different" enough from that experience in the 12 fucking years since I quit EQ1 is Shadowbane and either of the Planetsides. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed some of them, because I have. But the burden a subscription places on me as a consumer is that I must get something approaching "my money's worth" out of the experience - so there is an unconscious commitment to play this game over anything else. In the absence of good single-player, non-sub games, that's not a problem. But I've missed a lot of great games over the years because I wanted/needed to play a subscription MMOG over single-player stuff (both Baldur's Gates and Planescape Tormet just to name a few things). Even Secret World, which was a good bit of a departure from the typical MMOG progression system, still had all the markings and trappings of an EQ-clone. The gameplay experience just hasn't been different enough from MMOG to MMOG that I am willing to give a company $60 AND chain myself to a subscription fee. I will never be able to play fast enough in one free month to get my "money's worth" out of the free month.

And here's where F2P comes in. I don't feel the crushing necessity to play this game in exclusion of all else on F2P - unless it's really all I want to play. I can see if the game is worth my time before I ever spend a dime. If the game IS worthwhile, I have the choice to spend money as I wish within the game's restrictions. If I don't like it, I'm not out $60, just time.

Nothing I've seen in Elder Scrolls Online makes me think this experience will be different "enough" from the previous 12 years to make me even begin to entertain the notion of spending $60 AND paying a subscription before I can figure out if I'll even like the game or not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on August 23, 2013, 09:45:07 AM
Strictly speaking, all of that mostly only applies to subscription models that ALSO charge a normal fee for the box (or an extra 45 dollars for the first month, however you want to look at it).  Which admittedly is every subscription MMO ever, as far as I know.  I get why, since companies want that massive, immediate cash injection from the box price (or massive splurge purchases, in the case of F2P), but it would be cool if there was a subscription-based game that you just kinda started paying a subscription for in order to be able to play it, or at least had a much smaller initial fee.  (The new FFXIV does this, sort of, in that at least it is only 30 dollars for the box, which includes one month subscription)

It always kind of drives me nuts how much people use the term "free month" to describe the included 30-day subscription (notably, I've never seen the games themselves call it a "free month").  Particularly when people use it to justify a poor launch (this is the free month!  You can't complain about it!).  The first month is the MOST EXPENSIVE month.  There is nothing free about it!

Edit:  Btw, Haemish, I wasn't targeting you with that free month rant specifically, in case it wasn't obvious.  You weren't really using the term in the way that I find annoying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2013, 12:32:42 PM
How many hours of entertainment is enough that $60 is worth it to you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on August 23, 2013, 01:07:12 PM
A fuckload. More than any game has given me in years but I don't tend to buy even single-player games at full price because I'm a cheap fucker.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on August 23, 2013, 02:31:25 PM
I can't wait till they apply this logic to Pizza Delivery and I can get a free cheese pizza delivered in a box that offers to sell me parmesan cheese and red pepper flakes for 50 dollars.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on August 23, 2013, 02:53:50 PM
I can't wait till they apply this logic to Pizza Delivery and I can get a free cheese pizza delivered in a box that offers to sell me parmesan cheese and red pepper flakes for 50 dollars.

Typhon, I'm blaming you for all these retarded analogies.  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE CAN'T DO THE MOVIE ONE ANYMORE.   :x


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on August 23, 2013, 06:20:58 PM
How many hours of entertainment is enough that $60 is worth it to you?
Feh. 10-50. You buy a game, you play a game, you finish a game or get bored by it. Only because Steam or XBL tells you the number of hours you played is this even a fucking question. Without that piece of info we'd do what we've always done forever and always: play until boredom and yea that company don't suck maybe I''ll buy their next game/sequel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on August 23, 2013, 08:55:52 PM
How many hours of entertainment is enough that $60 is worth it to you?
Feh. 10-50. You buy a game, you play a game, you finish a game or get bored by it. Only because Steam or XBL tells you the number of hours you played is this even a fucking question. Without that piece of info we'd do what we've always done forever and always: play until boredom and yea that company don't suck maybe I''ll buy their next game/sequel.
Um, lots of single player games keep track of your time played on your save files and have since at least SNES days. This is not new.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 24, 2013, 03:26:04 AM
How many hours of entertainment is enough that $60 is worth it to you?
Feh. 10-50. You buy a game, you play a game, you finish a game or get bored by it. Only because Steam or XBL tells you the number of hours you played is this even a fucking question. Without that piece of info we'd do what we've always done forever and always: play until boredom and yea that company don't suck maybe I''ll buy their next game/sequel.

That's not why I was asking the question, which I would have thought the context would have made clear.

Haemish's point was that he couldn't fit enough play time in the first month to make that 'free' first month of MMO worth the box cost even if he didn't keep subscribing, and I was just wondering where that threshold is for people.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on August 24, 2013, 04:17:13 AM
I think the difference with an MMO is that the fun is not very concentrated.

I'm fine with 10-15 hours for $60 of a single player game. I don't have a lot of time to devote to gaming anyway. But in an MMO 15 hours of gaming is going to be like 3 hours of fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on August 24, 2013, 07:50:34 AM
Haemish kind of sums it up for me.  Since so many games have gone f2p, I've felt more comfortable giving them a fair shot.  When I find one I enjoy,  I'll spend the odd bit of currency on it through the cash shop.  I don't mind the f2p + sub choice as long as they don't charge for content or essential items needed to progress.  I'm okay with paying for expansions unless they're trying to make me pay as much as a full game.  Then I just wait for a sale.  The mere fact that I can play as I want, with no worries of either wasting money or having to sub and unsub over and over, definitely makes the game more palatable to me.  I have a short attention span and I'm fickle, but it the game is interesting, I can go back to playing it for years.  I also don't find 10-15 hours of game to be acceptable unless there's lots of replay value in the game.  $60 has become rather dear in my new all alone life so I have to be careful not to waste it.  And having to pay a console fee while PC players don't, pisses me off, too.  Srsly, what??  I might as well live in Australia and play vanilla games for premium prices when they bother to let me play them at all!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on August 24, 2013, 04:19:20 PM
The other thing is that I think the sub emphasis games on the horizon (TESO and WildStar) are going to be incredibly disappointed at what player expectations are now that free is more the baseline than sub. Either you've got youngsters coming in who are used to free being stigma free or old folks who just can't be bothered to devote themselves to that money to time ratio which Haemish is mentioning. Both games might crash on those rocks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on August 25, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
Let's look at it this way. LOL is a free game. I started playing it with the intention of never spending money.

Over 2 years later, I've probably spent at least $200 on champs and skins. Just in season 3, I've played over 400 games at 40-50 minutes per game. So in the time since I started playing for free, I've spent the equivalent of 4 new games worth of money, and gotten an absolute fucking overload of playtime. An MMOG that costs $60 for the box + $15/month would have to keep me subscribed for close to a year to be worth the same to me as a consumer.

I haven't had a year long subscription to an MMOG since Lord of the Rings Online. Secret World lasted 3 months. Even F2P offerings like EQ2 haven't kept me interested that long. And this game doesn't look like it's anything that different from any of the long parade of MMOG's I've played over the last decade. If the entry was free, I'd give it a shot and it MIGHT get money out of me. Box fee? Fuggedaboutit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on August 25, 2013, 07:08:40 AM
Let's look at it this way. LOL is a free game. I started playing it with the intention of never spending money.

Over 2 years later, I've probably spent at least $200 on champs and skins. Just in season 3, I've played over 400 games at 40-50 minutes per game. So in the time since I started playing for free, I've spent the equivalent of 4 new games worth of money, and gotten an absolute fucking overload of playtime. An MMOG that costs $60 for the box + $15/month would have to keep me subscribed for close to a year to be worth the same to me as a consumer.

I haven't had a year long subscription to an MMOG since Lord of the Rings Online. Secret World lasted 3 months. Even F2P offerings like EQ2 haven't kept me interested that long. And this game doesn't look like it's anything that different from any of the long parade of MMOG's I've played over the last decade. If the entry was free, I'd give it a shot and it MIGHT get money out of me. Box fee? Fuggedaboutit.

Unfortunatly all the games on the horizon offer nothing different in terms of gameplay, so a sub is out of the question for me at least.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on August 25, 2013, 11:59:16 AM
A true three sided realm war pvp game might be able to pull off having a sub if they did not mind being niche.  I doubt an elder scrolls game is shooting for niche though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 25, 2013, 12:29:02 PM
ESO is banking on the popularity of its single-player success to bring it into the MMO market.  I think this is a very naive view.  It's one thing to make a successful single player RPG and quite another to make an MMO.  Very different designs, strategies, and approaches.

I have a feeling that ESO will learn this the hard way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on August 25, 2013, 09:36:37 PM
I realize this is beating a horse to a bloody pulp, but what's particularly strange about that plan is that the single-player games are all about the mechanics and massively open-ended, sandbox-y nature.  Not the actual world, which imho is "meh" at best.  And pretty much nothing other than the actual setting seem to be carrying over into the MMO.  Do fans of the Elder Scrolls series, in general, give two shits about the history of the world?  I mean, I sort of PRETEND to invest myself in the setting whenever I play one of the games, but it never sticks.  Not even sort of.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on August 25, 2013, 10:10:39 PM
If they start charging the same price of movie tickets for games, I wouldn't mind at all.  :why_so_serious:
Gotta love those steam sales and humble bundles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on August 26, 2013, 10:57:25 AM
People are looking at this WAYYY too logically (and I"m not being sarcastic).

People aren't logical.  We *all* do stupid shit that doesn't make sense in hindset.  We are emboldened to emotions and marketing.  When you put a subscription game up against a whole plethora of non-subscription games, it doesn't matter what the actual entertainment $ per hour you get for it, what matters is it requires realizing before you play the game that  it's going to be an extra monthly bill if you decide to play it. 

This is different from games like GW2 or free to play games where even though in the long run you might actually spend more than you would on a subscription, you can play and buy the game without a nagging feelling like you are adding another bill to your monthly queue.  You might throw some money at the game later (more than a subscription stats show) but that's fine in your head because you are getting something immediately that you didn't have before.  With a subscription you are paying each month for the same thing you've had.

There's a HUGE mental difference that has nothing to do with logically comparable prices with other entertainment types.  Since the days of UO people would scoff at me paying $10-15 a month ot play a game while they'd spend much more on other forms of entertainment (or even non-MMO games).  The only difference now is companies found out how to make money without charging a subscription, which makes people do a double take on subscription even more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on August 26, 2013, 11:53:59 AM
If any game is good enough to make me want to play it like I did my first few years of EQ or WoW, then I'll gladly pay upwards of $50/month. 

The real trick is making a fun game that puts me back in that mindset, and none of these current iterations appear to be getting close. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on August 26, 2013, 11:19:46 PM
If any game is good enough to make me want to play it like I did my first few years of EQ or WoW, then I'll gladly pay upwards of $50/month. 

The real trick is making a fun game that puts me back in that mindset, and none of these current iterations appear to be getting close. 

I don't think that's a game you want, it's a time-machine.

The bizarre thing is this whole discussion seems to revolve around the assumption f2p vs sub has some sort of a relation to quality, simply because one of the longest running sub MMO's is a good (the best?) one out there.

Perhaps games go f2p because one of the single most important things about an MMO is having enough people play it, even if some of them don't bring in revenue. In a way WoW did that even though they had/have a sub by being good, but much more than that they did it by being early; they were able to reach some sort of critical mass before the market got swamped with alternatives and now it's an MMO everyone knows always has huge numbers.

The really cynical side of me is saying these new MMO's probably already have f2p plans ready and they're just launching box+sub 'cause someone estimated that's the fastest way to recuperate the investment, then 6-12 months in you just do what everyone does and swindle your customers into f2p.
5 years ago launching box+sub, then changing to f2p in the first year seemed like a failure or a panic move, now I wouldn't be surprised if it's a business plan.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on August 27, 2013, 12:26:01 AM
This won't even have as much free content updates as Skyrim IMO.
That's why I don't see the appeal unless you really need people to travel around with you and raid bosses.
And if the art style sucks, too bad, you can't download a mod to improve it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on August 27, 2013, 02:10:26 AM
This won't even have as much free content updates as Skyrim IMO.
That's why I don't see the appeal unless you really need people to travel around with you and raid bosses.
And if the art style sucks, too bad, you can't download a mod to improve it.

What I look for mostly in MMOs these days is large scale pvp. I still like pve but I have no interest in doing the same content repeatedly when it offers no real variation. RvR was what kept me playing GW2 actively far longer than I thought I would (getting into a proper guild was essential for that). The same is true for ESO, if it offers a decent large scale pvp then I'll be playing it for an extended (meaning past the first two months) period of time but otherwise I'll probably skip it unless I have nothing better to play at the time ESO releases.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on August 27, 2013, 04:06:03 AM
If someone made an MMO where the world was procedurally generated, where there lots of NPCs with procedurally generated Maslow-style 'needs hierarchy' AIs and NPC factions, where there were procedurally generated 'events', where there were relatively small numbers of players in a very large world, and where the emphasis of play was on manipulating, changing and deforming the world instead of levelling up a character and loading him up with gear, I'd pay a big monthly fee to play even if it needed a lot of work. Otherwise, it's not about a price-to-time-played question any more for me: even if I played for 30 hours and was thinking, "Well, this is better than going to the dentist, I guess", there is something so depressing about the inability of developers to even *iterate* the design precepts in your average DIKU-inspired MMO that I end up feeling sad and bad both that the game exists and that I played it. I find myself trying to be excited now when I look at an MMO about something as simple as "Well, that grouping mechanic is slightly different" or "well, the art assets on that boss weren't half-bad" or "well, I cared a teeny bit about that NPC while I was doing the quest, nice writing."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on August 27, 2013, 05:04:57 AM
and a pony.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on August 27, 2013, 11:58:36 AM
ESO is banking on the popularity of its single-player success to bring it into the MMO market.  I think this is a very naive view.  It's one thing to make a successful single player RPG and quite another to make an MMO.  Very different designs, strategies, and approaches.

I have a feeling that ESO will learn this the hard way.

Isn't that why they brought in Matt Firor to help steer the game in the correct direction?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on August 27, 2013, 12:25:55 PM
If someone made an MMO where the world was procedurally generated, where there lots of NPCs with procedurally generated Maslow-style 'needs hierarchy' AIs and NPC factions, where there were procedurally generated 'events', where there were relatively small numbers of players in a very large world, and where the emphasis of play was on manipulating, changing and deforming the world instead of levelling up a character and loading him up with gear, I'd pay a big monthly fee to play even if it needed a lot of work. Otherwise, it's not about a price-to-time-played question any more for me: even if I played for 30 hours and was thinking, "Well, this is better than going to the dentist, I guess", there is something so depressing about the inability of developers to even *iterate* the design precepts in your average DIKU-inspired MMO that I end up feeling sad and bad both that the game exists and that I played it. I find myself trying to be excited now when I look at an MMO about something as simple as "Well, that grouping mechanic is slightly different" or "well, the art assets on that boss weren't half-bad" or "well, I cared a teeny bit about that NPC while I was doing the quest, nice writing."


EQN is talking up this pony, or supposedly they are talking about part of it. I just don't know if it's the head part or the ass part.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on August 27, 2013, 02:11:21 PM
The idea of many shards of large worlds with low player populations on each shard is an interesting one.  With hardware costs as low as they are, I wonder how economically viable this would be.  Imagine a world the size of launch day EQ2 but only 500-1,000 players?  The ability to allow those 500 to really shape the topography and events would be incredibly compelling.  I just think the potential work required to babysit 200-300 shards would be organizationally daunting for a game company.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 27, 2013, 04:08:31 PM
I was thinking of something similar in regard to the Wildstar, "is sub model dead" conversation.  I think if a company created a game and allowed guilds/federation of guilds to have a lock on a specific instance, and specify some of the rule set for that instance, that that would probably be a pretty big success story for a subscription based business model.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on August 27, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
The idea of many shards of large worlds with low player populations on each shard is an interesting one.  With hardware costs as low as they are, I wonder how economically viable this would be.  Imagine a world the size of launch day EQ2 but only 500-1,000 players?  The ability to allow those 500 to really shape the topography and events would be incredibly compelling.  I just think the potential work required to babysit 200-300 shards would be organizationally daunting for a game company.

There's nothing particularly technically challenging about this in general.  Each "server" doesn't actually correspond to a physical server, and it may even be easier to run two copies of the world with 500 players each than one copy of 1000 players.  Would probably depend on the game, but other than having to run more NPCs it would generally be easier to have players isolated from each other.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 27, 2013, 05:34:24 PM
I was thinking of something similar in regard to the Wildstar, "is sub model dead" conversation.  I think if a company created a game and allowed guilds/federation of guilds to have a lock on a specific instance, and specify some of the rule set for that instance, that that would probably be a pretty big success story for a subscription based business model.

You are under the assumption that sub based models even need incentive beyond the normal game.

Also, your idea is terrible and you should feel bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 28, 2013, 05:44:52 AM
Oh noes! Someone disagreed with you on the internet and now your feelings are hurt!  Grow up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 06:58:24 AM
 :headscratch:  I thought I was the was disagreeing with you.  I mean, you honestly think guilds should be allowed to lock instances for themselves in an mmo?  Why not let looting in pvp steal rl money out of bank accounts while we're at it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on August 28, 2013, 07:18:55 AM
I don't think he was using the "dungeon" definition of instance, but rather talking about spawning off a entire server instance for a guild who pays for their own or something, where they could tweak server rules to suit their guild.  That was my takeaway, at least.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 09:08:57 AM
Then it's not even an MMO anymore it's just large team based games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 28, 2013, 09:11:32 AM
Then it's not even an MMO anymore it's just large team based games.

Seems to me that's exactly what WoW is designed to be.  A large team-based game (dungeons, raids, WZ's).  The open world stuff is an annoyance filled with moronic chat, griefers, and uninspired content.  GW2 did a MUCH better job with the open world content.  I hope that more people emulate GW2's method of encouraging cooperativity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on August 28, 2013, 09:23:22 AM
Then it's not even an MMO anymore it's just large team based games.

Exactly.  I think that model could do very well.  It could even charge a premium subscription if done right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 09:25:43 AM
Then it's not even an MMO anymore it's just large team based games.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 28, 2013, 09:28:36 AM
Abelian75 is spot-on, that is exactly what I'm talking about.

I was taking the NWN concept and marrying it with what DAOC did, server instances with rules variant.  Then I was giving the decision-making authority for what rules to have on that server instance to the folks paying for the server instance, the guilds.  Basically the guild would be all by themselves on a shard with a ruleset that they like.

End goal here would be that the game devs would be able to have games that developed differently based upon player action and (re-)introduce game mechanisms that were cool, but also exploitable.  Essentially a guild-wide single player game.

I don't feel bad.

Edit: added first sentence


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 09:55:01 AM
The problem with large team based games is you don't meet new people, you are expected to bring your own.  Fine for some people here who have had gaming friends for over a decade but you had to meet those people somewhere.  MMO's may be filled with immaturity but there are still cool people playing them that DON'T have groups of friends and will find them through playing the game. 

That's one of the biggest strengths of the mmo model, finding groups of people you enjoy playing with and thereby giving stickyness to the game at large.  Team based games already exist in the FPS sphere however and those do not charge subscriptions so I think adding a sub model to something you play with your small group of friends could be tough just from an expectations standpoint.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 28, 2013, 10:16:31 AM
I was thinking that the main game would be MMO F2P, but that groups of a a certain minimum size would have the capability to start their own instance (and choose their own rule variants).

Guild server instances would need a way to bring in guests to see if they fit with the guild - something like LFR but in reverse, more like a LFTank/Healer/Etc that would be used to vet out guild candidates and fill team shortages from the F2P population.

The idea probably doesn't scratch the 'server first!' type of guilds itch, seems like it would be more for large casual guilds that would like server state to change based upon what the guild (collectively) did.

Just an odd idea I had, not something I'm personally hoping to see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 28, 2013, 03:29:49 PM
Abelian75 is spot-on, that is exactly what I'm talking about.

I was taking the NWN concept and marrying it with what DAOC did, server instances with rules variant.  Then I was giving the decision-making authority for what rules to have on that server instance to the folks paying for the server instance, the guilds.  Basically the guild would be all by themselves on a shard with a ruleset that they like.

End goal here would be that the game devs would be able to have games that developed differently based upon player action and (re-)introduce game mechanisms that were cool, but also exploitable.  Essentially a guild-wide single player game.

I don't feel bad.

Edit: added first sentence

Wow, you really, really communicated that idea poorly the first time. Sounded like EQ catass raid camping stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on August 28, 2013, 04:38:17 PM
If I wasn't still shunning you, I'd agree that the word 'server' desperately needed to be before 'instance' in that first post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on September 04, 2013, 08:57:09 AM
Before I sign anything, check your emails.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on September 04, 2013, 10:25:23 AM
Hypothetically speaking, I wouldn't run a stress test when half the userbase is almost guaranteed to be doing something else, like working.  But hey, what do I know?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on September 04, 2013, 11:45:33 AM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".


Mine too. See you in game!

These people have snubbed me and as far as I'm concerned they lied to my face. I hate them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on September 05, 2013, 05:54:46 AM
Hypothetically speaking, I wouldn't run a stress test when half the userbase is almost guaranteed to be doing something else, like working.  But hey, what do I know?

But if we run it when everyone's home then we'll have to work late!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 05, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Those elves..... :why_so_serious:

A picture is worth one thousand words and one look at those elves tells me the game is terrible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 05, 2013, 11:29:40 AM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".


Mine too. See you in game!

These people have snubbed me and as far as I'm concerned they lied to my face. I hate them.

Isn't this just a stress test, not closed beta?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Quinton on September 05, 2013, 05:10:10 PM
From an invite email (pre-signing-up-for-anything, pre-signing-any-NDA):

"This is not a normal test! Even though this is your first test session with us, we'll be actively trying to push the system to failure during this test instead of focusing on gameplay feedback.  Please help hammer it!  In return for helping us, your participation in this stress test will increase your chances to be invited to a normal, longer-term test."

So it sounds like no guarantee of any access beyond this stress test.  Dangling the carrot of "more beta access" does seem like one way to get a bunch of people to pile on to help melt your servers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on September 05, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Hah, they sent me like 2 more emails:  "ZOMG don't forget about beta tomorrow!  Make your account and install it now!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on September 06, 2013, 12:45:31 AM
So I can't even get invited to a stress test  :cry:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on September 06, 2013, 06:31:39 PM
I am saying this completely without context: lol


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on September 06, 2013, 08:30:18 PM
Same.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on September 07, 2013, 02:29:50 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 09, 2013, 12:08:22 PM
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/07/sony-pushed-for-the-elder-scrolls-online-to-come-to-consoles

Heh.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on September 10, 2013, 09:12:40 AM
So we have a colossal trainwreck across three platforms to look forward to?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on September 10, 2013, 09:13:31 AM
Triple teh fun!  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on September 10, 2013, 09:59:40 AM
Do they talk to each other or is it a different server cluster for every platform?  Because the first would be amusing to see for once.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 10, 2013, 10:23:03 AM
I think they realize at this point exactly how fucked they are, and they are just putting it on every platform in the hope they can sell enough boxes to defray the losses before they go F2P and shut it down.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on September 10, 2013, 10:24:17 AM
Even more reasons for me to ignore it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on September 10, 2013, 10:33:49 AM
Are you guys basing all of this on a promo video or do you have something more substantial to go on?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 10, 2013, 11:26:23 AM
Sounds like TSO will live up to all expectations.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 10, 2013, 12:49:09 PM
Are you guys basing all of this on a promo video or do you have something more substantial to go on?

If you didn't see the 20 minutes or whatnot of leaked footage then you missed out. However, I'm making a few educated guesses about the structure. They've created this shell company specifically for the game so that they can jettison it if it fails. They are making statements about how the publishers are pushing them around. It sounds like the perfect setup for failure when the blame game comes a knocking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on September 10, 2013, 12:50:34 PM
If you didn't see the 20 minutes or whatnot of leaked footage then you missed out. However, I'm making a few educated guesses about the structure. They've created this shell company specifically for the game so that they can jettison it if it fails. They are making statements about how the publishers are pushing them around. It sounds like the perfect setup for failure when the blame game comes a knocking.

I did see the leaked footage and the combat looked pretty dreadful.  I just wondered if something else had been floating around that I missed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on September 11, 2013, 09:27:34 AM
Are you guys basing all of this on a promo video or do you have something more substantial to go on?

1.  Company that has never made an MMORPG before promises the moon.  Check.
2.  Leaked footage shows clunky terrible combat. Check.
3.  Leaks from developer indicating decisions were forced on them from higher ups.  Check.
4.  Subscription pricing model when the entire industry is moving to F2P and subsequent arrogance regarding "quality product."  Check.
5.  Very little info on actual game systems.  Check.

I'm a pretty hardcore fanboy, and I would love for TESO to succeed (especially if they are RvR focused) but it does, from the outside, look like a steaming train headed for a washed out bridge.  But prove me wrong kids.  Prove me Wrong!!!!  (Full disclosure:  I will be buying 2 boxes because the misses luuuuurves the eder scroll series and insists we play Dunmer or some such crap, so I will happily report on this disaster from the inside).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on September 11, 2013, 09:39:28 AM

4.  Subscription pricing model when the entire industry is moving to F2P and subsequent arrogance regarding "quality product."  Check.


Debatable.  There's still a place for sub games, if the game is worth subbing to.

Your other points are spot-on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on September 11, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
My biggest concern for ESO was/is that the pc version was supposed to be released in 2013 and now it's delayed to launch along with the console versions next year (not that it's delayed but that they haven't shown any more  so far despite supposedly being on schedule for 2013 launch in the spring this year)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 11, 2013, 10:23:32 AM
No, it's delayed. They wanted this thing to start making money ASAP, but they've realized that if they release a PC version early, it will smoke their console sales when it proves to be recycled SWTOR garbage.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 11, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
They need the time to consoleize the interface to make the PC experience as completely shitty as possible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on September 11, 2013, 12:30:13 PM
I wish they were selling lifetime subs to this game. What a piece of shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 11, 2013, 01:17:33 PM
They need the time to consoleize the interface to make the PC experience as completely shitty as possible.

If there's one thing Elder Scrolls is known for, it's a solid UI experience.  :rimshot:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on September 11, 2013, 05:18:56 PM
I thought it was most known for being the only game series that the users have to finish developing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 11, 2013, 05:33:01 PM
Neither of those criticisms are true of Skyrim, the default UI was perfectly functional and it doesn't need any other modding at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 11, 2013, 06:38:22 PM
Not sure if serious....


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on September 11, 2013, 10:07:44 PM
Can't be, since the default UI is what made me stop playing after 4 hours.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on September 12, 2013, 12:38:07 AM
Skyrim's UI was terrible, on the PC. Sure it can be played and enjoyed, after all some of us grew up playing games in the 80s, but it was ridiculous especially for a game of that scope and budget. Skyrim's inventory is what I mention in any discussion about bad UIs and idiotic design.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on September 12, 2013, 12:44:35 AM
delaying MMO release is never a bad thing.
It's when they release too early it can fuck it up badly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on September 12, 2013, 03:19:04 AM
delaying MMO release is never a bad thing.
It's when they release too early it can fuck it up badly.

Delay means that someone has mucked up the development schedule and it's very very rare that something is delayed so long that they can actually fix everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on September 12, 2013, 04:16:03 AM
Skyrim's UI was terrible, on the PC. Sure it can be played and enjoyed, after all some of us grew up playing games in the 80s, but it was ridiculous especially for a game of that scope and budget. Skyrim's inventory is what I mention in any discussion about bad UIs and idiotic design.

Yeah this.  I like to play Skyrim unmodded to get the "pure" experience, but I always, always have skyUI loaded, for my own sanity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 12, 2013, 06:31:36 AM
Neither of those criticisms are true of Skyrim, the default UI was perfectly functional and it doesn't need any other modding at all.

 :roll:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on September 12, 2013, 06:53:20 AM
I've always used the default and, to be brutal, it's never really been an issue.  Ugly, sure, but not a huge pain in the ass to use.

I may look up better ones now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Jherad on September 12, 2013, 08:51:45 AM
Yeah, the default isn't completely terrible. But SkyUI is a big big improvement. I couldn't go back.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dren on September 12, 2013, 09:25:34 AM
I'll have to try that.  I play vanilla, but inventory management was always my biggest complaint.  One of my sons loves to play still so he'd probably get the most out of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on September 12, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
My issue is that I've found it impossible to play any of the TES games without, at the very least, increasing magicka to 500.  In all their games, high level spells cost way more mana to cast that the game seemed to make available vanilla.  Like 3-4 times more.

An MMO would prevent me from modding the game to make it playable for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 12, 2013, 02:58:51 PM
I'm completely serious. Other than some occasional funkiness with selecting the wrong conversation choice, Skyrim's default UI is perfectly usable on the PC.

Now, for Oblivion, that's not true, certainly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 12, 2013, 04:04:33 PM
I'll put that in the 4,356th file folder of "Shit Ingmar and I don't agree on."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on September 12, 2013, 04:06:45 PM
The Oblivion UI was not good, but it was fine. I never had to fight with it, and I'm a UI nazi.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on September 12, 2013, 04:36:15 PM
I'll have to try that.  I play vanilla, but inventory management was always my biggest complaint.  One of my sons loves to play still so he'd probably get the most out of it.

You can sort by item type, item value, even filter the stolen items, sort by highest attack value.
I can't possibly go back to that shit UI after what they've done with SkyUI.
Don't know why people wanna torture themselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: lamaros on September 12, 2013, 04:40:14 PM
Skyrim UI wasn't great, but it was perfectly useable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on September 12, 2013, 05:02:05 PM
I'm sure if i installed a UI mod i would go "yup, this is much better" but the UI was never bad enough that i set out to find a replacement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on September 13, 2013, 05:15:46 AM
Again, "usable"? Sure, everything is usable once you get used to it. No matter how bad a UI is, once you get used to it, it's usable. Case in point, old games.

Now please show me why, in the second decade of the third millennium, the Skyrim way is a good decent acceptable way to deal with an RPG inventory.

I guess when so many things are fantastic in a game people tend to give the shitty aspects a pass.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 13, 2013, 06:13:06 AM
As far as UIs go, it was shit. Really shit. Was it usable? Sure. Did I often skip doing things during play because I didn't want to have to deal with it? Yes. Did it prevent me from playing the game? no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 13, 2013, 06:36:40 AM
Again, "usable"? Sure, everything is usable once you get used to it. No matter how bad a UI is, once you get used to it, it's usable. Case in point, old games.

Now please show me why, in the second decade of the third millennium, the Skyrim way is a good decent acceptable way to deal with an RPG inventory.

I guess when so many things are fantastic in a game people tend to give the shitty aspects a pass.

Yes, that's my take on it as well. We're 5 iterations into this game or whatnot, and the best we can say about the UI is it's "usable"? This isn't some small studio who makes games in a basement. They should have this shit together by now. It's a failure in my book when a game that sells that well can't get the simplest of functions right.

Again, why is the paper doll so horrible to these people? Why must we "equip" items in a menu and not on a visual representation that makes sense. Why is sorting and selling so horrible?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bunk on September 13, 2013, 06:41:59 AM
- open window one
- select Tab for type of item/magic
- locate desired item in long list by scrolling through
- set desired item as a favorite
- close window one
- open window two
- locate desired item by scrolling through favorite list
- select hot key for item
- close window two

Congrats, you've hot-keyed one weapon! What could be more straightforward and intuitive than that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on September 13, 2013, 08:11:22 AM
Yeah, the favourite system is utterly retarded, but it's console retarded, so what can you do ?

Does SkyUI or whatever make that better ?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on September 13, 2013, 10:12:41 AM
SkyUI changes the lists of items to be sortable lists of items AND their stats.  So you don't have to hover over an armor piece to see its weight, value, weight/value, type, armor rating, etc.

As far as favorites, it's unable to work around the 8 hotkeys max, and marking things as favorites THEN assigning hotkeys in a different window.  However, they have added F1-F8 functionality where you can have groups of favorites, or outfit sets, or potion sets, that you can activate with a keypress.  It's effectively doubled the number of hotkeys.  Before, I had 1-4 as various Destruction spells, 5-6 as heals / armor spells, and 7-8 potions.  Now I have 1-8 Destruction attacks, F8 I drink a whole bunch of potions, F7 switch to a sneaking clothing set + Illusion spells ready, F6 - F1 various combos of utility spells (one per hand).

It's not great, and they've embedded the core UI functionality too deep for SkyUI to really fix it, but for most people the fact that the stats are listed with the items now, and sortable, is why they can't go back to the standard interface once they've used SkyUI.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 13, 2013, 11:41:18 AM
Again, "usable"? Sure, everything is usable once you get used to it. No matter how bad a UI is, once you get used to it, it's usable. Case in point, old games.

Now please show me why, in the second decade of the third millennium, the Skyrim way is a good decent acceptable way to deal with an RPG inventory.

I guess when so many things are fantastic in a game people tend to give the shitty aspects a pass.

95 times out of 100 I never felt like the UI was interfering with me, and it was clean and stayed out of the way for the most part. It certainly didn't get anywhere near 'unacceptable'.

EDIT: I actually don't particularly care for paper dolls - especially in a game where you can't see yourself most of the time anyway. They're nice enough for games where you're trying to get your look right because other people will see you or you'll have to look at yourself all the time, but for a game like Skyrim, a paper doll would be bloat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on September 14, 2013, 10:11:17 AM
I was ok with the UI, except inventory management. Not so much my character's, but all the other places I needed to stash stuff. It was designed for console for sure, but then, this kind of UI is one of the reasons I avoid console versions if a PC one is available. Too many different UI modes when so much could be combined.

If it was because of immersion, sure, I could get behind that in the same way I was fine with default UO UI elements. Having to organize visually and spacially is fine if there's a reason. I'm also one of those that didn't hate the Diablos' inventory management system. Not realistic, but certainly more so than having what you can carry be only restricted by weight. I appreciate the attempt to add some additional variables to it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on September 18, 2013, 04:51:11 AM
Go ahead and add me to the list of people who were fine with Skyrims UI.  Put plenty of hours into the game and had no real problems with it.  It was there, it worked, and never got between me and the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on September 18, 2013, 08:11:13 AM
For me the Skyrim UI is (I still play) horribad for mouse and keyboard use. It's pretty, but slow and I don't find it very userfriendly overall. I've learned to live with these issues though (or work around them with mods). One thing I haven't been able to find a fix for though, is a better way of making conversation choices, because when selecting them with the mouse you don't always get the one you try to cllick on. :|


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on September 18, 2013, 11:21:07 AM
I'm on the list of people who found the hassle of installing SkyUI much smaller than the hassle of using the "it's fine" standard interface after about a minute of using it.

RE: conversation choices, I always scroll down the options with the mouse wheel to make the choice I want be at the < arrow, and THEN click on it.  But, there's a mod (http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/27371//?) to try to fix the issue, apparently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 18, 2013, 11:35:30 AM
If SKSE was available from the Workshop I'd be a lot more inclined to at least give SkyUI a try.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on September 18, 2013, 06:45:06 PM
Tried using Steam Workshop when I got a steam copy.
The popular mods in nexus doesn't exist - turns out it has a size limit and that made a lot of overhauls/graphical mods not hosted (too big)
Hence I just jumped into the Nexus Mod Manager boat, and it's easy to active/deactivate. It also asks you first if you want to update the mod to a new version.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on September 19, 2013, 03:03:05 AM
Also you are (were? I dunno if it's changed) limited to like... six Workshop mods at once, and no more. You also couldn't change their load orders.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on September 19, 2013, 07:26:18 AM
I'm on the list of people who found the hassle of installing SkyUI much smaller than the hassle of using the "it's fine" standard interface after about a minute of using it.

RE: conversation choices, I always scroll down the options with the mouse wheel to make the choice I want be at the < arrow, and THEN click on it.  But, there's a mod (http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/27371//?) to try to fix the issue, apparently.
Awesome, I'll have to give that mod a try.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on October 17, 2013, 01:57:49 PM
Character Creation video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr4KnUSGOtI&feature=youtu.be)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2013, 02:05:21 PM
That will be the most fun people have in the game. It's a downhill slide from creation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on October 18, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
Chest slider confirmed!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2013, 04:21:09 AM
I do like all the variable control of the body, that's like the only thing that actually matters in terms of differentiation of players. Face details aren't really visible unless you are zoomed in on a player and everyone wears the same gear eventually. The short guy with the pot belly and twig legs though, that's Jim!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on October 18, 2013, 08:28:46 AM
So, uh, that's exactly the same as AoC character creation. Right down to the UI.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on October 18, 2013, 09:24:47 AM
Needs more Dimonized UNP or CBBE.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2013, 10:06:07 AM
So, uh, that's exactly the same as AoC character creation. Right down to the UI.

Clearly that's not the case. The triangles are on different sides of the screen, and muscular/thin are swapped!  :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 18, 2013, 10:52:59 AM
Looks rather standard to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on October 19, 2013, 04:58:54 PM
Yep.

And I care just as little. All the character creation in the world matters little to me since it's always something done before you start making ingame choices about your character. CoH's awesome character creation system set the bar for me almost a decade ago. But it also highlighted that really fun experience wasn't something I could do again without rolling a new character. Which was and still is the MMO standard.

For all these games that pitch immersion, I'd like someone to put in a character system that changes over time, based on type of activity against percentage of /played or something. Am I a sloth-like crafter who spends most of his time buying/selling on the auction house? I'd probably not be a muscle bound Adonus, but instead some skinny merchant. Am I a warrior where I get all my buffs from fatty foods like cakes instead of fruits (thinking specifically GW2 type food for the moment)? I'm probably strong as an axe but with a bit of a belly.

I certainly wouldn't build a game around it. Shit, maybe it's not even appropriate for an MMO but rather something like a Skyrim. Whatever, I would just like it if character creation could become something more than painting a nice looking avatar and then quickly forgetting what they look like beyond the latest soon to be obsolete armor you just got.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on October 20, 2013, 05:30:24 PM
Heh, unfortunately we run all the time inside MMO's (and most avatar games, Skyrim included), so that would account for enough exercise to keep in very good shape.  Especially if you also consider the weight of equipment we carry around while running (multiple sets of armor, etc).

Though, pair your idea with more support for the roleplaying crowd (character background, public achievement updates, some sort of aging system, family system, combat scars, etc) and it would probably be acceptable.  Especially if the non-roleplayers have cheap access to dyes, armor customization, a barber shop, and costumes/illusions that make them look like different races.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Father mike on October 20, 2013, 08:34:29 PM
One of the Fable games did this.  If you ate pies and meat you got fat.  The more you leveled, the older you got (grey hair and gaunt face).  It was pretty annoying -- you tune and tweak your look, then the game comes in behind you and changes it all.

I'm getting old all by myself, thanks.  I don't need my diversions to reinforce the aging I see in the mirror and my friends!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on October 20, 2013, 08:35:21 PM
Swtor fucked up your face if you went really dark side.  You could turn it off though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on October 20, 2013, 10:22:32 PM
For all these games that pitch immersion, I'd like someone to put in a character system that changes over time, based on type of activity against percentage of /played or something. Am I a sloth-like crafter who spends most of his time buying/selling on the auction house? I'd probably not be a muscle bound Adonus, but instead some skinny merchant. Am I a warrior where I get all my buffs from fatty foods like cakes instead of fruits (thinking specifically GW2 type food for the moment)? I'm probably strong as an axe but with a bit of a belly.

I *think* Mabinogi does something like this. At least the vague bits I've heard about it indicate growing from age 10 to 25, and weight gain/loss being an issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on October 21, 2013, 02:29:16 AM
See also GTA San Andreas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 26, 2013, 05:34:32 AM

For all these games that pitch immersion, I'd like someone to put in a character system that changes over time, based on type of activity against percentage of /played or something.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/829607/daily/12/01.png)

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on October 26, 2013, 07:15:15 AM
I like how this thread has just turned into talking about the The Elder Scrolls online. As opposed to talking about ESO.

I'm back to playin' skirrim


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on October 26, 2013, 02:13:17 PM
Reminds me that I bought all the DLC during the summer sale but have yet to play any of it.

I'm not downloading any of these fucking mods.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on October 26, 2013, 10:58:23 PM
I'm not downloading any of these fucking mods.

Those aren't the mods I'd download either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 19, 2013, 07:08:10 PM
It appears invites may or may not be going out for a beta event that may or may not be this weekend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 19, 2013, 08:05:24 PM
It appears invites may or may not be going out for a beta event that may or may not be this weekend.

Yep I may or may not have gotten the same email.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on November 19, 2013, 08:48:59 PM
It appears invites may or may not be going out for a beta event that may or may not be this weekend.

Yep I may or may not have gotten the same email.

I'll have to look in my Schrödinger's Inbox to see whether or not I may or may not have received an email. I'll also have to see if my  Schrödinger's computer will actually install or not install the theoretical beta client this time around.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 19, 2013, 09:04:46 PM
I may or may not be in a similar position that some or none of you may or may not be in.  Yep, ended that with a preposition.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on November 20, 2013, 01:39:57 AM
Yes. I got a beta invite, you got a beta invite, just about everyone got a beta invite. What's going on this thread?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Furiously on November 20, 2013, 02:09:31 AM
I'm guessing a lot of people are about to wish all their skyrim mods worked with this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on November 20, 2013, 08:38:31 AM
So seeing as how I also may or may not have gotten a beta invite, I'm now jumping into this thread to see if this thing isn't a steaming pile that does/doesn't deserve space on my hard drive.  What's the consensus?  I'm not one of those "skyrim people" mind you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on November 20, 2013, 09:17:49 AM
Well, I didn't get an invite!   :heartbreak:  I guess I don't sleep around enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on November 20, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
Well, I didn't get an invite!   :heartbreak:  I guess I don't sleep around enough.

You can't fool me.  :hello_kitty:

Also, I got an email with some information in it as well. I guess this is a big push.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 20, 2013, 10:31:06 AM
Why are people keeping their invites "secret"? The invite doesn't have anything in it that says you can't mention it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on November 20, 2013, 10:31:50 AM
Oh damn, I just figured out that my beta invite was from back in September. I had missed that earlier weekend. Would have been nice to have been able to compare the state now to then.  :uhrr:

Anyways, if your beta invite was anything like mine, you get the invite e-mail and THEN you sign an NDA, so I'm not sure what all the pussyfooting on this page is about. Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon? Because you sure are playing up the *wink wink* *nudge nudge* aspect of an invite to play what will likely be a hilarious release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 20, 2013, 10:34:39 AM

Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon?

I think it depends on whether it is a (semi) serious developer or Brad McQuaid's/Richard Garriot's  latest pile of fail.  Serious stuff will be deleted, other things may be deleted,but may be kept depending on the amusement value.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on November 20, 2013, 10:39:27 AM

Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon?

I think it depends on whether it is a (semi) serious developer or Brad McQuaid's/Richard Garriot's  latest pile of fail.  Serious stuff will be deleted, other things may be deleted,but may be kept depending on the amusement value.
Where does Zenimax Online fall on this spectrum? Personally, I figure that unless you're trying to make this thread a place where a dev will feel comfortable posting (haha, look at any page), then it should be Fire-At-Will mode by default.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 20, 2013, 10:43:30 AM

Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon?

I think it depends on whether it is a (semi) serious developer or Brad McQuaid's/Richard Garriot's  latest pile of fail.  Serious stuff will be deleted, other things may be deleted,but may be kept depending on the amusement value.
Where does Zenimax Online fall on this spectrum? Personally, I figure that unless you're trying to make this thread a place where a dev will feel comfortable posting (haha, look at any page), then it should be Fire-At-Will mode by default.

Were you around for the halcyon days when Mark Jacobs posted in our Warhammer forums defending WHO and was savaged so thoroughly and so completely he probably still flinches at the thought of F13?  Good times...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on November 20, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
Poor Marc Jacobs.  Everyone picks on him.  This is one of those weekend beta "events", no?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 20, 2013, 11:22:35 AM
Poor Marc Jacobs.  Everyone picks on him.  This is one of those weekend beta "events", no?

It is. Per the NDA you're not supposed to divulge your beta invite status. Thus the wishy-washy.

And yes, for all the questions about NDAs, they are taken very seriously on this forum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on November 20, 2013, 11:49:51 AM
Were you around for the halcyon days when Mark Jacobs posted in our Warhammer forums defending WHO and was savaged so thoroughly and so completely he probably still flinches at the thought of F13?  Good times...

I went back and read a few pages of that thread. I had forgotten he edited out all his posts. That was fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 20, 2013, 11:53:54 AM
And yes, for all the questions about NDAs, they are taken very seriously on this forum.

I have great respect for developers that are secure enough about the quality of their game to drop their NDA after alpha. 

Just saying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 20, 2013, 11:54:48 AM
I do too. I pretty much won't play any MMO that I didn't beta, or had an NDA up to release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on November 20, 2013, 12:32:45 PM
Anyone who enforces a late beta NDA is hiding something. Usually the fact that their game is a flaming bag of dogshit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 20, 2013, 12:39:02 PM
I Just want to know, how much typical MMO underpinnings does this have. I'm guessing 100%.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 20, 2013, 12:39:31 PM
iirc, Jacobs was the one that put out the NDA-drop timeline.  I've a terrible memory, it went like:

10 weeks+ to launch:  game is awesome
6-10wks: game questionable
4wks: game is crap
launch drop: etc...

Or am I mis-remembering something?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 20, 2013, 02:14:28 PM
That was the beauty of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 20, 2013, 02:16:47 PM
I Just want to know, how much typical MMO underpinnings does this have. I'm guessing 100%.

My hope is that you hate it because that probably means I'll like it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 20, 2013, 03:09:17 PM
Looks like I'll get to try it as well. It may be not be in the same vein as a typical Elder Scrolls game, but I think I'll have fun with it considering how much I enjoy the series itself.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on November 20, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
I Just want to know, how much typical MMO underpinnings does this have. I'm guessing 100%.

My hope is that you hate it because that probably means I'll like it.  :awesome_for_real:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ezrast on November 21, 2013, 04:01:30 AM

Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon?

I think it depends on whether it is a (semi) serious developer or Brad McQuaid's/Richard Garriot's  latest pile of fail.  Serious stuff will be deleted, other things may be deleted,but may be kept depending on the amusement value.
I feel like this question gets asked, and gets this incorrect answer, every time a game goes under NDA. It's been right there at the top of the forum for five years now. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=13793.0) The winkwinknudgenudge stuff probably won't get you banned but is guaranteed to annoy Trippy.

As far as I know there has only ever been one exception, which was due to someone at Funcom pissing in Schild's corn flakes, and only lasted a couple days. it has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of the developer, as if that's even a thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 21, 2013, 05:32:17 AM

Is this a forum where you can get banned for NDA breaks or is it just frowned upon?

I think it depends on whether it is a (semi) serious developer or Brad McQuaid's/Richard Garriot's  latest pile of fail.  Serious stuff will be deleted, other things may be deleted,but may be kept depending on the amusement value.
I feel like this question gets asked, and gets this incorrect answer, every time a game goes under NDA. It's been right there at the top of the forum for five years now. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=13793.0) The winkwinknudgenudge stuff probably won't get you banned but is guaranteed to annoy Trippy.  On the bright side I didn't include he-who-must-not-be named in my list!

As far as I know there has only ever been one exception, which was due to someone at Funcom pissing in Schild's corn flakes, and only lasted a couple days. it has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of the developer, as if that's even a thing.

I'm not sure if it is clear that I meant that as a jokey response. I understand the official forum policy, apologies to Trippy if that post caused him heartburn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on November 22, 2013, 09:52:20 AM
iirc, Jacobs was the one that put out the NDA-drop timeline.  I've a terrible memory, it went like:

10 weeks+ to launch:  game is awesome
6-10wks: game questionable
4wks: game is crap
launch drop: etc...

Or am I mis-remembering something?
WARs turn to shit had nothing to do with "time" so much as level. IIRC, the first 20 levels were awesome, due to both battlefield design, and other things. After that it all went to shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 22, 2013, 10:18:19 AM
WARs turn to shit had nothing to do with "time" so much as level. IIRC, the first 20 levels were awesome, due to both battlefield design, and other things. After that it all went to shit.

It's not often that we completely agree about an MMO.  This makes me happy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on November 22, 2013, 02:56:11 PM
WARs turn to shit had nothing to do with "time" so much as level. IIRC, the first 20 levels were awesome, due to both battlefield design, and other things. After that it all went to shit.

Yep, which corresponded correctly to the focus of every single beta test, that one where you got pre-formatted R30 guys excluded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on November 22, 2013, 05:24:10 PM
I learned everything I needed to about WAR when I asked a few questions during Gamesday in Baltimore and the answers were basically "We're awesome, WAAARRGH"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 22, 2013, 07:32:24 PM
I have things to say and nowhere to say them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on November 22, 2013, 07:37:54 PM
I have things to say and nowhere to say them.

Also this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on November 22, 2013, 07:46:06 PM
:nda:  :mob:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 22, 2013, 08:55:39 PM
Wow.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 22, 2013, 10:44:51 PM
Huh, well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 23, 2013, 04:20:09 AM
I did not get a Beta invite. But I may or may not have been on another website where someone may or may not have said

Quote
Anyone else trying to get into the ESO beta tonight? I made a character but I'm stuck at the load screen for the first quest.

... which may or may not make me hopeful for the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on November 23, 2013, 04:28:03 AM
I did not get a Beta invite. But I may or may not have been on another website where someone may or may not have said

Quote
Anyone else trying to get into the ESO beta tonight? I made a character but I'm stuck at the load screen for the first quest.

... which may or may not make me hopeful for the game.

Enh. In general, bitching about a beta stress test revealing problems related to load is usually a sign of not understanding what a beta actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 23, 2013, 07:25:35 AM
Yeah.  Even MMOs are release have difficulties those first few days.  A problem like that in beta stress test I'm not going to hold against them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on November 23, 2013, 07:26:40 AM
People have become accustomed to betas that are essentially pre-release demos, often paid ones, with near-final content and code. This is not that kind of beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 23, 2013, 08:25:21 AM
I have things to say and nowhere to say them.

Also this.

Yep.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 23, 2013, 08:27:35 AM
I'm going to have to ask my co-worker about this on Monday since you are all being so noisily quiet.  He loved the prior beta weekend, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 23, 2013, 08:30:15 AM
Didn't know you worked at zenimax.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on November 23, 2013, 09:33:05 AM
mmm hmm. $60 + Subscription fee  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 23, 2013, 02:10:39 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/7rEGQ5q.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tearofsoul on November 23, 2013, 03:29:44 PM
It is a sad game.

That's all I want to say, for now...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 23, 2013, 04:32:55 PM
There is a thread about it on Neogaf where people are talking. Most of the posts are "uninstalled after an hour" and "this could do long term brand damage."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on November 23, 2013, 05:10:06 PM
Didn't even bother signing up for beta. Anyone with a history in mmo's and a functioning brain stem should have been able to tell this one wasn't even worth watching. Why is this thread up to page 45?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 23, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
Because there was one guy, and then another guy, who kept posting about how awesome TESO was going to be because of Firor being the lead and DAoC being the inspiration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on November 23, 2013, 06:33:25 PM
After this beta the only MMO anyone compares TESO to is SWTOR, lots of discussion on which is worse and/or which will be the bigger failure. Sadly I don't think this can crash and burn as awesomely because people are way less invested in the setting and thankfully people seem a lot less blind to how awful TESO is compared to the SWTOR release days.

Next up? Wildstar and the "vanilla WoW in space will totally rock guys, the game has humor!" crowd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 23, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
I'm going to be the outlier and say that I disagree. On what and how, I won't say (and if that's too much, I'll delete the comment).

I soured on Wildstar pretty quickly. Can't elaborate on that one, either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 24, 2013, 02:51:42 AM
Yeah my review of this game is done. I think people who are part of the ESO beta too should ask me for a copy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on November 24, 2013, 04:57:43 AM
Yeah my review of this game is done. I think people who are part of the ESO beta too should ask me for a copy.

Where's my copy?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 24, 2013, 05:21:24 AM
Yeah my review of this game is done. I think people who are part of the ESO beta too should ask me for a copy.

In our own way, aren't we all part of the TESO beta?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 24, 2013, 07:12:24 AM
When this game was announced, was there really anyone here who didn't in their heart of hearts know that it was going to be yet another catastrophic flop that went F2P in disgrace within a year of launch? World of Warcraft killed this model of game years ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 24, 2013, 07:48:44 AM
I have things to say and nowhere to say them.

Me too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 24, 2013, 09:08:40 AM
I Have not heard good things. I'm not in the beta, nor under NDA, but it sounds exactly like I thought it would be. Derivative, mediocre, MMO.

My hope is that you hate it because that probably means I'll like it.  :awesome_for_real:

Sounds like you will love it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 24, 2013, 10:10:26 AM
Next up? Wildstar and the "vanilla WoW in space will totally rock guys, the game has humor!" crowd.

Followed by the "Chris Roberts totally rocks" crowd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 24, 2013, 11:21:29 AM
You can buy spaceships in wildstar??


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 24, 2013, 12:31:35 PM
I'm in. Total playtime this weekend - less than 2 hours. Total playtime ever will end up being less than 2 hours. Take that for what you will.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 24, 2013, 01:09:31 PM
I'm toughing it out since I want to like the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 24, 2013, 01:11:22 PM
I'm toughing it out since I want to like the game.

If you get kicked in the nuts enough, you might start enjoying it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on November 24, 2013, 01:54:27 PM
All this circling around the NDA reminds me of something my granpappy used to say. You hang around a barbershop long enough, you end up getting a haircut.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2013, 03:02:21 PM
I won't discuss anything NDA related, but I can say is that I wasn't planning to order before this, and I am still not ordering anything in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on November 24, 2013, 05:11:06 PM
I've played a ton of a Hearthstone this weekend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on November 24, 2013, 05:17:43 PM
This weekend I reminded myself when Wildstar is releasing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on November 24, 2013, 05:57:55 PM
I'm in. Total playtime this weekend - less than 2 hours. Total playtime ever will end up being less than 2 hours. Take that for what you will.

That was about the amount of time I had in the PAX East playthrough, which was about all I needed as well  :oh_i_see:

Can't remember if I signed up for the beta. Pretty sure I did. Not sure I'll download. This has been a pile of meh since they announced ES and MMO in the same breadth. This has never been a concept that could work easily, and certainly not with how they planned to (and ultimately) approached it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 24, 2013, 06:03:07 PM
You guys are stretching my ability to keep quiet my contrarianism on this to its limits


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on November 24, 2013, 06:34:46 PM
I think I had more fun downloading the client.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on November 24, 2013, 07:42:32 PM
Ohh, common guys.  I hear we're winning our Guild Wars 2 WVW matchup this week because the other server is all playing TESO.  It must be awesome.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 24, 2013, 07:51:07 PM
I will say this. Ordinarily, I think that everyone else is weird for not liking a game I like. This time I'm pretty sure I'm the weirdo and everyone else is smart.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 24, 2013, 09:06:08 PM
Ohh, common guys.  I hear we're winning our Guild Wars 2 WVW matchup this week because the other server is all playing TESO.  It must be awesome.  :awesome_for_real:

I scheduled a lot of time for gaming this weekend. I played a lot of Assassins Creed Brotherhood, and WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 24, 2013, 09:30:50 PM
I will say this. Ordinarily, I think that everyone else is weird for not liking a game I like. This time I'm pretty sure I'm the weirdo and everyone else is smart.

I'm not so smart myself.

I'd still rather have a co-op Elder Scrolls game though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 24, 2013, 11:24:03 PM
I will say this. Ordinarily, I think that everyone else is weird for not liking a game I like. This time I'm pretty sure I'm the weirdo and everyone else is smart.

I didn't especially like it, but I'm pretty sure my objections to it are the opposite reason from the other folks here. Damn NDA, I want to talk about it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 25, 2013, 04:47:53 AM
Ohh, common guys.  I hear we're winning our Guild Wars 2 WVW matchup this week because the other server is all playing TESO.  It must be awesome.  :awesome_for_real:

I got into the TESO beta.  I spent far more time roaming in BG borderland in GW2 this weekend than playing it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 25, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
You know, every time I watched a video of this game, the only feeling I could really conjure up was a resounding meh. It just felt so much like everything I'd ever played in MMO's before. It didn't seem like one of those things I'd want to endure the inevitable bugs and rebalancing that comes with an MMOG launch.

Sometimes life does imitate art in all sorts of pedestrian and unsurprising ways.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 25, 2013, 11:06:28 AM
From watching the videos, my response was: "This would have been a great game.... six years ago."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hayduke on November 25, 2013, 11:07:57 AM
Damn now I almost wish I had signed up for the beta.  Finding creative ways to skirt around the NDA while saying it sucks seems like fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 25, 2013, 11:29:40 AM
I have things to say and nowhere to say them.

Me too.

This x10.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 11:54:18 AM
This weekend I reminded myself when Wildstar is releasing.

Because Wildstar totally won't be a collapsing shitpile undergoing a panicked conversion to F2P a year after launch, right?

Face it, this is a dead genre. Elder Scrolls and Wildstar are just the last stragglers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 25, 2013, 12:22:41 PM
If its a dead genre, it's because everyone has been flocking to and making WOW clones for the past 10 years. And WOW was basically a clone of Everquest, which was a clone of the Text MUDs I played in college.

The fact is everything SLIGHTLY original in this industry has utterly tanked or was not successful enough to be viable. People still bitch about Tabula Rasa, But Tabras was one of the most enjoyable MMO's I've ever played. I played it a year after it was out and it was just fantastic with original themes and mechanics. It was great. But people panned it because it had a rocky launch and laughed when it failed, rather than saw it as just another nail in the coffin of the industry.

People aim for WOW and then fail. AND they have to aim for WOW as if they don't they don't get investors to invest and they don't get bank loans. It's a vicious cycle, and All that matters is quarterly profits.

I mean, lets face it, who wanted a Skyrim MMO. No-one. What people wanted is a Co-op skyrym. But they went for the WOW MMO as their marketting felt that simply selling 2 million units and then having nothing is not as good as 2 million units with an ongoing sub to play. TES is not suited to an MMO. Its all about ludicrously powerful characters playing through several stories.

But the suits want their WOW revenue stream

When Wildstar Launches everyone will be all Oooh ahh for a month and then no-one will bother with it aside from low numbers who want to play that one game exclusively.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 25, 2013, 12:25:16 PM
This weekend I reminded myself when Wildstar is releasing.

Because Wildstar totally won't be a collapsing shitpile undergoing a panicked conversion to F2P a year after launch, right?

Face it, this is a dead genre. Elder Scrolls and Wildstar are just the last stragglers.

Guild wars 2 is still very playable.  I am still having quite a bit of fun there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 25, 2013, 12:34:20 PM
GW2 is really interesting as they have it in their buisness model that people pay their cash up front. So they don't run into the same problems that "continuing money stream" games do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 25, 2013, 12:37:44 PM
In my opinion, the way for the genre to move on is to get rid of two things: Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.

The whole leveling process is fucking stupid from a resource point of view. As these games become more and more expensive to make (from a time and labor point of view) the leveling process is a waste of time. Think about it, you are building this game for the long haul, especially if it's subscription driven. Why would you spend all that time developing content and world maps to level ranges that only get a few hours of play in a game you want people to spend 100's of hours playing?

You need to remove levels because levels are essentially a cosmetic and artificial barrier of entry. Create other ways to measure player power and advancement. Make it achievement based or whatever.

The second one is the quest treadmill content. It's so exclusive and not inclusive to the population playing. It's also static and boring as fuck. Even games like GW2 which essentially another quest driven game, but all quests are publicly shared, is a fun game but ultimately it loses it's shine. The reason it's still relevant is because the development team is constantly updating the game.

You need to be able to make procedural content. The pixie dust EQN is tossing around is interesting to listen to. Trove might be something worth watching from a design choice point of view too.

I'll jump off my soapbox.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 25, 2013, 12:47:30 PM
Yeah, every game that launches does the same thing.  If there are 30 zones you are lucky to get three end game zones, 27 are for leveling and completely barren about 3 months into the game.  Get rid of levels, give people options instead and start with 30 zones that will all be usable throughout the entire run of the game instead of throwing away extremely valuable content that's only good until characters reach max level.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 12:50:05 PM
Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.

Yep, it also makes it extreamly annoying to play with friends.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 25, 2013, 12:55:01 PM
Treadmill removal gets my vote. STO partially did this over a year ago by making the "leveling" really fast so you hit max in a few days of play, so you do most of the content with you at max level. They also have really good level scaling.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 01:09:27 PM
Yeah, every game that launches does the same thing.  If there are 30 zones you are lucky to get three end game zones, 27 are for leveling and completely barren about 3 months into the game.  Get rid of levels, give people options instead and start with 30 zones that will all be usable throughout the entire run of the game instead of throwing away extremely valuable content that's only good until characters reach max level.

Anecdotal, but 2 years on, SWTOR still has busy leveling zones. It's pretty unusual for there to be less than 2 of any given planet's instances going on my server during prime time/weekends, and I've seen 3+ in the busier ones. Also FWIW they get over a million unique players per month still, and they should be well past the break-even point by now income-wise. I know it doesn't fit the f13 narrative of OMG FAILURE but they're doing fine, meeting their content commitments, etc. It's more about the subscription model declining than the type of content people want, I think. There's plenty of demand for story/leveling narrative type content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 25, 2013, 01:12:09 PM
Yeah, every game that launches does the same thing.  If there are 30 zones you are lucky to get three end game zones, 27 are for leveling and completely barren about 3 months into the game.  Get rid of levels, give people options instead and start with 30 zones that will all be usable throughout the entire run of the game instead of throwing away extremely valuable content that's only good until characters reach max level.

Even if you are glued to levels and typical design theory, there is no real need to have each zone married to one specific level range outside maybe your newbie zones. That 10-20 level area that hardly ever gets used over the long haul should have elements in it for a large range of players.

Treadmill removal gets my vote. STO partially did this over a year ago by making the "leveling" really fast so you hit max in a few days of play, so you do most of the content with you at max level. They also have really good level scaling.

I used to be an advocate of using the leveling system as a 20 minute to 1 hour tutorial and leave it at that. If your class system is so complex that a person can't learn how to play it proficiently enough in a few hours of play, then you're doing it wrong.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
In my opinion, the way for the genre to move on is to get rid of two things: Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.

I don't disagree with this, but at the same time I'm at least five years past thinking it will ever happen or being able to say it with a straight face. EQN is talking a good game right now, but in the end all I really see for the genre is an enormous tombstone that reads "WORLD OF WARCRAFT" towering over a nauseating mass grave of shitty failed DIKU clones.

The last eight or so years have just been a complete bloodbath. Millions of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent across a dozen different companies, titanic intellectual properties like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have been brought to bear, and all for absolutely nothing. Not only has no viable WoW competitor ever been crowned, but even basic success has eluded most of the would-be contenders.

You know why I think Blizzard pulled the plug on Titan? Because even they can read the writing on the wall. It's a dead genre. The money doesn't want to go near it. God knows EA isn't likely to keep throwing money down the same bottomless suckhole that gave them WAR and SWTOR.

Maybe something will come along, some quirky little game that does things differently and is modestly rewarded from it, some tiny mammal running amidst the bones of all the dead dinosaurs, but it won't be like the old days. Everyone that used to fund all these flop wannabe WoW clones will be funding flop wannabe LoL clones, and the era of the big money MMORPG will have run from the late nineties to the middle of the twenty-tens before having come to an ignominous end.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 25, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Anecdotal, but 2 years on, SWTOR still has busy leveling zones. It's pretty unusual for there to be less than 2 of any given planet's instances going on my server during prime time/weekends, and I've seen 3+ in the busier ones. Also FWIW they get over a million unique players per month still, and they should be well past the break-even point by now income-wise. I know it doesn't fit the f13 narrative of OMG FAILURE but they're doing fine, meeting their content commitments, etc. It's more about the subscription model declining than the type of content people want, I think. There's plenty of demand for story/leveling narrative type content.

I think that has to do more with Star Wars and Free to play than anything else. I see no problem with story based advancement in online games. You don't need levels in between though. That just makes it fucking dull.

I would really enjoy playing SWTOR if all I had to do was the planet storyline and the class storyline. Unfortunately I'm collect a lot of ewok asses along the way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 25, 2013, 01:19:58 PM
In my opinion, the way for the genre to move on is to get rid of two things: Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.

I don't disagree with this, but at the same time I'm at least five years past thinking it will ever happen or being able to say it with a straight face. EQN is talking a good game right now, but in the end all I really see for the genre is an enormous tombstone that reads "WORLD OF WARCRAFT" towering over a nauseating mass grave of shitty failed DIKU clones.

The last eight or so years have just been a complete bloodbath. Millions of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent across a dozen different companies, titanic intellectual properties like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings have been brought to bear, and all for absolutely nothing. Not only has no viable WoW competitor ever been crowned, but even basic success has eluded most of the would-be contenders.

You know why I think Blizzard pulled the plug on Titan? Because even they can read the writing on the wall. It's a dead genre. The money doesn't want to go near it. God knows EA isn't likely to keep throwing money down the same bottomless suckhole that gave them WAR and SWTOR.

Maybe something will come along, some quirky little game that does things differently and is modestly rewarded from it, some tiny mammal running amidst the bones of all the dead dinosaurs, but it won't be like the old days. Everyone that used to fund all these flop wannabe WoW clones will be funding flop wannabe LoL clones, and the era of the big money MMORPG will have run from the late nineties to the middle of the twenty-tens before having come to an ignominous end.

I think saying that is as naive as saying that no MMORPG can top 500k subscribers back in 2002-4. Blizzard pulled the plug on Titan because the game probably sucked. Just look at Diablo. I don't have faith in Blizzard as many people used too.

The genre isn't dead, it's growing to absorb a lot of space. It's not longer unique to play videos games on the internet with other people in a shared space anymore. And all those failed games that you point to are profitable games to say the least, but they aren't smashing successes that they wanted to be. Out of all the big ones, only WAR has shut down.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on November 25, 2013, 01:21:52 PM
I can't imagine a world where SWTOR is doing well. Nobody I know has been able to play it for a solid month, its just so boring and shitty. Even people who like it admit its hilariously bad in many many ways and places. If SWTOR is surviving despite being such a piece of shit either the money morons were right about the value of established ip's all along or this genre can't be dead since enough people are so desperate for something to play that they'll play SWTOR.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 25, 2013, 01:24:40 PM
You may not have realized this, but f13 is not the center of the world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 25, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
Yeah, every game that launches does the same thing.  If there are 30 zones you are lucky to get three end game zones, 27 are for leveling and completely barren about 3 months into the game. 

GW2 has mostly solved this though. The last world event happend in a 15-25 zone which remains challenging (higher levels scale down). So you have the story provided by levelling to unlock the zones (and XP comes in quickly and from everything) and all of them are useful at end level.

I'm messing with Defiance at the moment which has mostly flat progression and people sort of hate the fact that their level 500 (they're not quite levels) gun can be inferior to the noob weapon they got soon after starting. It means there's no feeling of progression and that can be one of the draws to an MMO... you start out weak and scared and grow over time to become a seasoned adventurer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 25, 2013, 01:47:23 PM
GW2 kind of solved it, but they constantly have to develop content and put it in whatever place on the world map. However people aren't coming back for the constructed combat, they are coming back because there happens to be a new shiny in the zone. Otherwise, they would be there at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on November 25, 2013, 01:52:17 PM
From watching the videos, my response was: "This would have been a great game.... six years ago."

 i dunno about "great" part but it would definitely be a better one then. But TESO reminds me of AoC for some reason and that thing wasn't exactly amazing success 6 years ago either


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 25, 2013, 01:57:11 PM
Predictions are not NDA breaking right? because i'm going to go with "complete failure, shuts down within the first year".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 25, 2013, 02:12:29 PM
I can't imagine a world where SWTOR is doing well. Nobody I know has been able to play it for a solid month, its just so boring and shitty. Even people who like it admit its hilariously bad in many many ways and places. If SWTOR is surviving despite being such a piece of shit either the money morons were right about the value of established ip's all along or this genre can't be dead since enough people are so desperate for something to play that they'll play SWTOR.

It's got 8 US servers and 9 EU servers, with, as mentioned earlier, most zones split into 2-3 instanced copies to handle whatever crowds.  It has the cartel market to let people pay for instant gratification shiny (saber crystals, mounts, whatever), and I would guess that a lot of their income comes from that (rather than from subscriptions).

Also, it's about the class and planet quest lines, and once you get a character to 55 and your legacy to 15 or so, the XP boosts stack so much that it is entirely possible to just do those quests and none of the Ewok ass ones, and level any other characters to 50 or whatever from just those.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 25, 2013, 02:14:41 PM
I think SWTOR having over a million players is along the lines of Wizard 101 or that other even older piece of shit being among the most succesful MMORPGs ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on November 25, 2013, 02:32:24 PM
GW2 is really interesting as they have it in their buisness model that people pay their cash up front. So they don't run into the same problems that "continuing money stream" games do.

Well no, because:

GW2 kind of solved it, but they constantly have to develop content and put it in whatever place on the world map. However people aren't coming back for the constructed combat, they are coming back because there happens to be a new shiny in the zone. Otherwise, they would be there at all.

So they partially solved it in a f2p sorta way, where the masses get to play because the really interested minority are enough to keep it funded for us all.

It's a dead genre.

Well kinda, but think of it more as a dead medium. The idea of a massively multiplayer shared space experience started dying a decade or so ago as more games compartmentalized experiences into more manageable (read: less experimental) chunks. This is because the experimental ones were too niche to emulate outside of the visionaries who created those niche experiences being granted a second opportunity to do so. Unfortunately this resulted in an affirmation of why certain things are niche.

People kept saying they wanted to interact with thousands of people at once. But what they actually did was romp through contrived game-able D&D-style modules with their friends or with select people who had enough experience having already done so, leaving the only "massive" as the server-wide auction house. People wanted gaming in manageable chunks. They'd pay a fee and accept a lower threshold of quality, but ultimately they didn't care about the "MMO". They cared about the "RPG".

MMOs basically haven't been "MM" in a long time. Eve is the only actual MMO I can think of. But it's so wierd there ain't anyone outside its playerbase and CCP who can even explain it, much less explain why anyone else should try and make that game again.

Big money doesn't always follow success. However, the big money always follows precedent.

So the big money moved on to f2p Asian imports, then social networking activities, and now apps. Then maybe apps for augmented reality Glass/Occulus type things. Or back out to pharmaceuticals  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 02:47:19 PM
I think saying that is as naive as saying that no MMORPG can top 500k subscribers back in 2002-4. Blizzard pulled the plug on Titan because the game probably sucked. Just look at Diablo. I don't have faith in Blizzard as many people used too.

The genre isn't dead, it's growing to absorb a lot of space. It's not longer unique to play videos games on the internet with other people in a shared space anymore. And all those failed games that you point to are profitable games to say the least, but they aren't smashing successes that they wanted to be. Out of all the big ones, only WAR has shut down.

The fact that the disgraced carcass of SWTOR is still allowed to occupy a meathook somewhere while an EA skeleton crew scrapes out the marrow and charges people for hotbars is apropos of nothing. No one considers it a success, no one will spend money in hopes of emulating it. No one with a project on the drawing board dreams of having the next SWTOR. It's an evolutionary dead end.

It's the same with Conan, Warhammer, Matrix, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, Auto Assault, Lord of the Rings, and all the rest of them. Sure not all of them have actually had to shutter their servers, sure the ones that still exist have probably earned more than their initial budget in total profit over years of bumbling around as F2P zombies, but so what? No one is excited by them. No one is writing positive headlines about them. No one with a hundred million dollars to invest wants to hear that he can be in on the ground floor of the next Rifts.

No game will ever inherit the throne of WoW the way WoW usurped EverQuest. That lineage is for all intents and purposes over. WoW will simply rule over a dying empire until everyone eventually just sort of stops talking about it. It's already been nine years; imagine a world where it's 2006 and no MMORPG has yet surpassed (or even managed to compete with) Ultima Online.

You're right, it is no longer unique to play games online with other people. And without that hook, that novelty, what else does the MMO genre have left? Nothing but warmed-over mechanics and cockblocks meant to keep you playing way past when you're done having fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on November 25, 2013, 03:01:32 PM


No game will ever inherit the throne of WoW the way WoW usurped EverQuest.
No one will until they do and it will seem obvious to us the same way EQ and WoW seem obvious to us now even though at time things were very cloudy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 04:14:09 PM
I think saying that is as naive as saying that no MMORPG can top 500k subscribers back in 2002-4. Blizzard pulled the plug on Titan because the game probably sucked. Just look at Diablo. I don't have faith in Blizzard as many people used too.

The genre isn't dead, it's growing to absorb a lot of space. It's not longer unique to play videos games on the internet with other people in a shared space anymore. And all those failed games that you point to are profitable games to say the least, but they aren't smashing successes that they wanted to be. Out of all the big ones, only WAR has shut down.

The fact that the disgraced carcass of SWTOR is still allowed to occupy a meathook somewhere while an EA skeleton crew scrapes out the marrow and charges people for hotbars is apropos of nothing. No one considers it a success, no one will spend money in hopes of emulating it. No one with a project on the drawing board dreams of having the next SWTOR. It's an evolutionary dead end.

It's the same with Conan, Warhammer, Matrix, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, Auto Assault, Lord of the Rings, and all the rest of them. Sure not all of them have actually had to shutter their servers, sure the ones that still exist have probably earned more than their initial budget in total profit over years of bumbling around as F2P zombies, but so what? No one is excited by them. No one is writing positive headlines about them. No one with a hundred million dollars to invest wants to hear that he can be in on the ground floor of the next Rifts.

No game will ever inherit the throne of WoW the way WoW usurped EverQuest. That lineage is for all intents and purposes over. WoW will simply rule over a dying empire until everyone eventually just sort of stops talking about it. It's already been nine years; imagine a world where it's 2006 and no MMORPG has yet surpassed (or even managed to compete with) Ultima Online.

You're right, it is no longer unique to play games online with other people. And without that hook, that novelty, what else does the MMO genre have left? Nothing but warmed-over mechanics and cockblocks meant to keep you playing way past when you're done having fun.

What a load of nonsense. By no metric in the world can a game like LotRO be considered a failure, unless the bar is literally "you must equal WoW." Which is just stupid. The market for MMOs is still bigger today than it was when WoW launched. That it is spread across more games is not a bad thing nor does it make those games failures because their players are numbered in the mere 500k-1million range.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 25, 2013, 04:19:18 PM
I still think Mount and Blade combat in an MMO setting would fly off the shelves.

And if it already exists, it needs better marketing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 04:34:36 PM
What a load of nonsense. By no metric in the world can a game like LotRO be considered a failure, unless the bar is literally "you must equal WoW." Which is just stupid. The market for MMOs is still bigger today than it was when WoW launched. That it is spread across more games is not a bad thing nor does it make those games failures because their players are numbered in the mere 500k-1million range.

"Do a solid functional WoW clone with the most golden IP in fantasy attached and you too can underperform EQ1!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 04:38:59 PM
What a load of nonsense. By no metric in the world can a game like LotRO be considered a failure, unless the bar is literally "you must equal WoW." Which is just stupid. The market for MMOs is still bigger today than it was when WoW launched. That it is spread across more games is not a bad thing nor does it make those games failures because their players are numbered in the mere 500k-1million range.

"Do a solid functional WoW clone with the most golden IP in fantasy attached and you too can underperform EQ1!"

[citation needed]


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 04:59:13 PM
So you don't remember the publisher talking shit about wanting to do a million sustained and how if anything could compete with WoW it would be that sweet sweet Lord of the Rings license? You don't remember Turbine's CEO being quietly shitcanned six months after launch?

Hey, whatever, great success I guess.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 05:04:16 PM
So you don't have anything to show that it was less successful than EQ1, is what I'm getting. Thought so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on November 25, 2013, 05:05:29 PM
In my opinion, the way for the genre to move on is to get rid of two things: Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.
Leveling is indeed content that will only be consumed a couple of times, you're right. But that doesn't matter. Let me put it this way. Back in the early 2000s there were a bunch of multiplayer-only shooters, like Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament, a bunch of Battlefields, Quake Wars, etc. None of them were particularly successful. They did OK, but nothing like Modern Warfare, Battlefield, etc, do today.

That high quality quickly consumed content is the hook that gets people in the door. It's what gets them to buy an expansion, or a new entry in your franchise every year. Multiplayer Call of Duty: Ghosts isn't particularly different from the last CoD. So why did CoD:Ghosts sell through so many copies? It's a known recipe for success. If you tried to release a MMO that was only the endgame, you'd face a similar challenge. The cost of entry is so much higher for MMOs that nobody can take the chance.

There's more to it too; the leveling portion is usually the best part of the game. I buy each WoW expansion as it comes out, level up my guys to max, do a couple dungeons, then quit until the next expansion or patch comes out with new content. That's how I consume MMOs-- it is what I believe to be the healthiest way.

And lastly, procedural content is fucking boring.  Everquest Next is not relying on procedural content; it's the exact opposite. They're relying upon player-created content. And that is the right answer. Whether EQN will execute on its promise is another question entirely.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 25, 2013, 05:05:38 PM
So you don't have anything to show that it was less successful than EQ1, is what I'm getting. Thought so.

Was it more successful? Do you have that info?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 05:34:53 PM
I don't - Turbine has never to my knowledge given exact subscriber numbers, anecdotally I've heard they peaked a bit over 500k (higher than EQ) - and who knows now, its impossible to untangle things post F2P.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 05:41:00 PM
Was it more successful? Do you have that info?

As far as I know LOTRO studiously avoided ever releasing any hard subscriber numbers, but the scuttlebutt always put them somewhere north of 300k but lower than 500k. That one particularly infamous chart does have them briefly squeaking just a little higher than peak EQ, but then it also has them underperforming it markedly over most of its lifetime.

Honestly, I wasn't aware that LOTRO being smaller than EQ was in its prime was some sort of controversial opinion. Lots of games have gone with the old "As long as we don't specify subscriber numbers you can't prove anything!" routine, but in the long term it's never fooled anyone who wasn't a fanboy looking to be fooled.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 25, 2013, 05:42:51 PM
Holy shit, SirBruce is still plugging away?

EDIT: Hmm, no, a mysterious new guy.

EDIT 2: LOL

Quote
Website Blocked
Location: www.mmogchart.com
Your organization's policy prohibits access to websites categorized as Illegal Drugs.
Return to the page you were previously viewing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 25, 2013, 06:00:48 PM
As far as I know LOTRO studiously avoided ever releasing any hard subscriber numbers, but the scuttlebutt always put them somewhere north of 300k but lower than 500k. That one particularly infamous chart does have them briefly squeaking just a little higher than peak EQ, but then it also has them underperforming it markedly over most of its lifetime.

Honestly, I wasn't aware that LOTRO being smaller than EQ was in its prime was some sort of controversial opinion. Lots of games have gone with the old "As long as we don't specify subscriber numbers you can't prove anything!" routine, but in the long term it's never fooled anyone who wasn't a fanboy looking to be fooled.
Posting vague rumor bullshit as fact is "some sort of controversial opinion".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 25, 2013, 06:15:18 PM
Who gives a shit? I mean, seriously, are we dialing back the clock six years to before the time when we all collectively figured out the real thing that matters is (box sales + subs) - (development costs + ongoing maintenance) >= (INSERT HIGHLY INDIVIDUALIZED INTERNAL CORPORATE TARGET NUMBER) is a success?

LOTRO is perfectly successful on the only terms which actually matter: their own internals. Any comparisons to WoW or GW2 (and any comparisons between those two games) on raw numbers is dumb and annoying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2013, 06:19:22 PM
Quite frankly any level of subscriber number based success bar also needs to be published along side development costs and ongoing costs. Things like SWTOR being financially disappointing on launch aren't due to the player counts, it's due to the massive development pricetag compared to the player counts.

The main failure of the last gen of MMOs was looking at EQ -> WoW's sub increase and developing against that happening every time. The actual games with a sane budget are profitable as all hell, which is why it takes so long for them to actually shut down.

edit: hah, MA beat me while I was typing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 06:21:35 PM
LOTRO is perfectly successful on the only terms which actually matter: their own internals. Any comparisons to WoW or GW2 (and any comparisons between those two games) on raw numbers is dumb and annoying.

Excuse me, but we're going to need citations of Turbine's internal targets for LOTRO. Posting vague rumor bullshit as fact is a controversial opinion, I'm told.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 25, 2013, 06:24:43 PM
Yearly expansions with significant content (even if it's mostly leveling content) are pretty concrete signs to me.

Where did you come from and why are you so angry about MMO subs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on November 25, 2013, 06:30:09 PM
Ingmar and MA better step up their game, the new guy has moxie! 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 25, 2013, 06:37:06 PM
I'm too old for moxie anymore. I just don't give a shit about raw numbers anymore. Is MMO X able to crank out regular content updates? Are the servers still up? Are their employees able to maintain steady positions and can they feed their families?

None of those things have to do with the quality of the game. MMO nerds have this weird tendency to conflate the two, drifting in and out of treating them as the same thing. Nobody cares anymore. Why in the world do raw sub numbers matter at all?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 06:47:43 PM
If we're talking about the experience of being a player dicking around in one of these games, subscriber counts obviously mean nothing. If we're talking about the health of the genre (as I was) then they matter quite a bit. A whole huge, huge, huge shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre over the last six or eight years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2013, 06:50:22 PM
If we're talking about the experience of being a player dicking around in one of these games, subscriber counts obviously mean nothing. If we're talking about the health of the genre (as I was) then they matter quite a bit. A whole huge, huge, huge shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre over the last six or eight years.

A shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre, but not by lotro. You are looking for much MUCH larger budget targets for that ire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 06:54:44 PM
A shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre, but not by lotro. You are looking for much MUCH larger budget targets for that ire.

No, that much is correct, LOTRO was first put into development when EQ was still king and was presumably budgeted to compete at that level. I just ungracefully listed it alongside a bunch of really awful post-WoW flops when I was throwing together my off-the-cuff list of MMOs that didn't set the world on fire. Then we had to have a fight over whether it was at the EQ level or not for some reason.

Edit: What the hell is even in the pipe these days, past ESO, Wildstar, and EQN?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 25, 2013, 06:59:35 PM
A shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre, but not by lotro. You are looking for much MUCH larger budget targets for that ire.

Right. And the budgets involved are WAY more what people need to look at over subs. Looking at subs is doing the wrong thing.

And define "set the world on fire". Why does any MMO need to do that? Nobody's freaking out over non-MMO games not "setting the world on fire". I'm questioning the basic premise that anyone needs to give any more thought/angst to MMOs than the broader PC game market. They're just another genre (or medium, whatever) of game.

I used to care about this shit. So I'm saying "make me care again". Tell me why I should care about raw subs, how much money people lost, etc when MMOs are no better or worse off than most other PC games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 25, 2013, 07:22:55 PM
Edit: What the hell is even in the pipe these days, past ESO, Wildstar, and EQN?

Nothing we know of. But by the time they're out, there will be one or two more new whiz-bang MMOs announced that people will then ask "what the hell is even in the pipe these days, past..." about.

Just like it has been for the past five or six years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 25, 2013, 07:31:29 PM
And define "set the world on fire". Why does any MMO need to do that? Nobody's freaking out over non-MMO games not "setting the world on fire". I'm questioning the basic premise that anyone needs to give any more thought/angst to MMOs than the broader PC game market. They're just another genre (or medium, whatever) of game.

Because it's a genre that hasn't had a genuine unmitigated smash hit in almost a decade now. A stumbling, tired, ailing thing only being saved from total irrelevance for the moment by the existence of World of Warcraft.

I mean after enough years of repetition the whole rueful forumgoer's refrain of "Ugh, gosh, they just need to innovate! Give me something besides levels and quests!" just starts to sound like some kind of sick joke. It's not happening. They are never going to innovate. The entire existing genre is going to have to die off before there's even a chance of some mammal squeaking up between the dinosaur bones to make it happen.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 25, 2013, 07:59:51 PM
I disagree. Innovation comes with acceptance of risk, not a complete death of a genre. It comes in the indie games market usually and gets fleshed out at the top.

The reason you haven't seen innovation in the last 6 years is the financial collapse of the overall economy. The only companies making money in that stretch are those that had an already established franchise, and repeated the ever loving shit out of it. Activision is the classic example with WoW and CoD. EA has tried to do the same thing with their franchises, while putting pressure on BioWare to crank out crap.

However, you're going to see more risks in the next 5 year pipeline, because the market can now afford to take risks. Projects can start today that couldn't be started in 2009. Hell, the DOW is up over 16,000 today.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on November 25, 2013, 08:22:50 PM
And define "set the world on fire". Why does any MMO need to do that? Nobody's freaking out over non-MMO games not "setting the world on fire". I'm questioning the basic premise that anyone needs to give any more thought/angst to MMOs than the broader PC game market. They're just another genre (or medium, whatever) of game.

Because it's a genre that hasn't had a genuine unmitigated smash hit in almost a decade now. A stumbling, tired, ailing thing only being saved from total irrelevance for the moment by the existence of World of Warcraft.

I mean after enough years of repetition the whole rueful forumgoer's refrain of "Ugh, gosh, they just need to innovate! Give me something besides levels and quests!" just starts to sound like some kind of sick joke. It's not happening. They are never going to innovate. The entire existing genre is going to have to die off before there's even a chance of some mammal squeaking up between the dinosaur bones to make it happen.

Define smash hit, and why it's needed? You seem to be singularly focused on "must be bigger than the current largest" instead of "must make dickloads of money"

The genre is alive because it's profitable as all fuck. Everyone and their dog wants recurring revenue, because normal gaming studios have a huge problem with having to drum up cash to start up 2-3 year development runs. This is also why you see things like Ubi and EA moving to yearly installments of their best sellers. It's lower risk. Just like MMOs are if you don't dump 60 million into trying to top WoW's sub numbers on an untested IP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on November 25, 2013, 08:59:37 PM
Whoah so much heat in this thread.
Look at the mods we can have in skyrim tho, so much goodness in one game.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 25, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
I largely agree with new guy.

Innovation is as likely to come from other genres moving towards MMOs as from actual MMOs. A lot of games these days are online in some fashion. In addition the subscription model is no longer the holy grail - 5 years ago everyone was moving towards subs because of the allure of recurring revenue, but now other monetization schemes also promise recurring revenue, apply to more kinds of games, and have higher upper bounds on spending. All the people that were super keen in investing in MMOs 5 years ago are probably now putting that money into mobile games.

The MMO development landscape is very incestuous - I mean how many times is someone going to make an MMO out of Austin employing the same people that made the last 10 failed MMOs? Part of the reason there's little innovation is that it's the same people moving from one game to the next. They are going to keep making the same games and non-MMO games are going to be multiplayer enough to come in and eat their lunch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 26, 2013, 12:49:59 AM
Define smash hit, and why it's needed? You seem to be singularly focused on "must be bigger than the current largest" instead of "must make dickloads of money"

Bigger than the current largest? Shit, I'd settle for something that convincingly outperformed EQ1, a game that came out during the Clinton Administration and punched the user in the dick every time it was booted up. Even by that pathetic standard, the Western MMO industry outside of Blizzard has done exactly fuck all in the last eight years. Their biggest success story is Eve, a weird little decade-old outsider game with something less than five percent of WoW's peak subscribers.

There's nothing happening here. It's just wreck after wreck after wreck. Nobody is impressed that Fuckwaffles Online or whatever random-ass game some fanboy wants to stick up for finally limped its way to breaking even two years after being crucified in the press as the disgrace of the century and three years after anyone quit giving a shit. Developers pour money into these games expecting a return on investment, and that return isn't supposed to take the form of "Gosh we're turning a steady little profit now that we've layed everyone off and scored some interns to make hats for the cash shop!"

And hey, look, if you can't wait for the big money and all their stupid expectations to fuck off so you can enjoy a weird beardy little world of low-budget grinders, you know, that's great. That's perfectly valid. There are still people making and playing hex-based wargames, too, you know? But let's not pretend hex-based wargames aren't a moribund genre.

Innovation is as likely to come from other genres moving towards MMOs as from actual MMOs. A lot of games these days are online in some fashion.

Also, everything this guy said. If we're playing anything that resembles an MMO in 2020 and anyone gives a shit, it'll be because Rockstar or Nintendo or someone like that co-opted what was left of the genre and adapted it to their own model, not because the current crop of dipshit MMO developers ever pulled their heads out of their asses. It's been almost a decade since WoW, we've seen their best.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on November 26, 2013, 01:04:31 AM
Dear Wizgard

Would you like to join RPGCodex.net?

Regards,
RK47


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 26, 2013, 02:04:12 AM
GW2 kind of solved it, but they constantly have to develop content and put it in whatever place on the world map. However people aren't coming back for the constructed combat, they are coming back because there happens to be a new shiny in the zone. Otherwise, they would be there at all.

That isn't really connected to levelling, that's the issue with static content being consumed and getting boring. Which is really the big challenge.

GW2 made a weak effort. Daily quests include a region requirement and many of the zones have high level events that pop. But as in WoW and EQ that just means the players work out their spawns and do a drive-by as soon as they pop (or ignore them).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on November 26, 2013, 02:54:42 AM
There are still people making and playing hex-based wargames, too, you know? But let's not pretend hex-based wargames aren't a moribund genre.

Matrix/Slitherine is as big as SSI ever was back in mid-late 80s. Hexes have crept into mainstream casual-strategy titles like Civ5 and GalCiv3. I'd venture wargames in general are far more alive than space sims are these days.

This is interesting. It's rare to see a new poster chuck as many indiscriminate grenades as this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 04:41:56 AM
Okay, but why should anyone fucking care if a game outperforms EQ1?

Again, you're going off about "flaming wrecks after flaming wrecks" and numbers. Nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares. They do not matter. It does not matter if a game is hyped up and gets "only" 100k subs if "only" 100k subs is profitable for them. Whether a game brings in more subs than EQ1 is not a marker of a) innovation or b) success, it's just a marker of if they got more subs than EQ1. And if investors want more than a steady profit as a return then I really don't give a shit about that, either; I'm pretty past the point of shedding tears for capitalists wanting to break big with a gamble. MMOs are steadily profitable, they're usually not very good games, sometimes one turns out alright. The End.

You're really het up over the least important number on the scoreboard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 26, 2013, 05:05:59 AM
Eve is an interesting example, I was thinking about this last night. One of the unusual things is that you never stop leveling. When I started eve people said it would take you something like 3 and a half years to master every skill in the game. But they kept adding new skills, so you were always on the treadmill. Granted it was passive leveling where you just had to click a button every so often and at most grind up the cash for the skill book, but it was there. And it meant that you were always on an unassailable pedestal compared to people who had joined the game after you. So you would always be "better" than that git who's only crime was joining a week after you. And then of course you had all the killier equipment that you could use because you had Skill X and the other guy didn't. So you always have the ability to punch someone in the dick harder than he can punch you.

Its a pretty sadistic model. And I only played the game for 5 years, what does that say about me?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on November 26, 2013, 05:56:50 AM
Whoah so much heat in this thread.
Look at the mods we can have in skyrim tho, so much goodness in one game.


need beta invite plz


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on November 26, 2013, 06:31:00 AM
Izzat Battletoads?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 26, 2013, 06:34:54 AM
Relevant: upcoming hex based MMO, Dogs of War. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/219700/)

And a gameplay video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uzbd-9V7UI).

Anyway, this new person talks like that friend of mine who whines all the time about his present relationships because they are not, and they will never be again, like that first few times he fell in love in high school and college. So nothing (in the MMORPG genre) will ever be to them like EverQuest and World of Warcraft. Nothing will ever hit that hard again.

Strictly money-wise, and only if we keep strict to the old definition of MMORPG, it is possible. Then again, who cares? Why should anything else hit that hard again? Times were right for those homeruns, and now they are right for very different ones. It is certainly interesting to speculate about the direction a certain, relatively new, genre will develop towards. But to call it dead simply because the times have changed enough (and the ever growing customer base has fragmented over hundreds of titles) to make a new monopoly like the EQ and WoW ones impossible is merely an exercise in dramatization.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 06:53:56 AM
Yeah. To act like the EQ1/WOW sub levels are the main marker of success and shearing that marker from all historical context is bonkers. It's not just that WOW was solid, it's that it came at a time before a lot of other time wasters and we were all 10 years younger.

It reminds me a bit of the days when pen and paper RPGs were big. We're arguably in a golden age of tabletop gaming but there's a ton of whining because it doesn't feel like the old days with million copy selling games and hobby stores on every corner. Well, no, but that's the wrong fucking comparison. People grew up, different things filled the space that 22 year olds used to fill with that particular strain of gaming, and that's okay. It's okay that Well-regarded Game X doesn't sell as much as AD&D 2nd when it launched because it's a totally different world.

And it's okay that LOTRO (since we need an example) doesn't sell as much as WOW or EQ1 or whatever. People are employed, content is created, the lights are one, people who enjoy it are enjoying it. Everything related to past successes is frankly off-topic of anything which matters.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 26, 2013, 07:02:10 AM
Or TCGs are dead because there hasn't been any other hit like it since Magic: The Gathering, and that was twenty years ago?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 26, 2013, 08:43:51 AM
A shitload of money has been lost betting on this genre, but not by lotro. You are looking for much MUCH larger budget targets for that ire.

No, that much is correct, LOTRO was first put into development when EQ was still king and was presumably budgeted to compete at that level. I just ungracefully listed it alongside a bunch of really awful post-WoW flops when I was throwing together my off-the-cuff list of MMOs that didn't set the world on fire. Then we had to have a fight over whether it was at the EQ level or not for some reason.

Edit: What the hell is even in the pipe these days, past ESO, Wildstar, and EQN?

Some korean stuff like archeage, black desert, blade and soul? they look purty at least.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on November 26, 2013, 08:44:28 AM
New guy is basically right, I think.

It's a case of path-dependence. MMOs built their entire DNA up out of Diku and there are fundamental problems in that basic ancestry that have gotten more and more lethal with each successive generation from the parent. It's a cul-de-sac.

Basically, there are only three ways in my view to satisfy the desires and expectations that players carried into MMOs way back when the genre first became commercially viable with UO. 1) is single-player open-world games like Skyrim, Red Dead, etc., though they might have limited multiplayer components like Dark Souls does. 2) is a procedurally-generated environment focused on collaborative building w/deformable terrain and various bots or NPCs, like Minecraft. 3) is something like EVE--persistent-world PvP with limited PvE components.

It's not impossible to imagine that some advances in AI, etc. could allow for a hybrid of these approaches--something that looks as good and/or has good storytelling like Red Dead but that is procedurally generated and populated. But to get there, you have to back up all the way to the beginning and completely abandon almost the entire history of MMOs as a dead end, and start with something simple but powerful. Minecraft kind of already did that, but I'm not at all clear that there's anyone out there capable of making the next step from that beginning.

The other thing that has to be abandoned that is somewhat separate from the diku template is the "massively" part. There are only a few kinds of games that are fun to play with total strangers of the XBLA sort, and they are all by their nature ephemeral and short. Nobody wants to spend night after night, week after week, playing with a bunch of misanthropic assholes. Virtual worlds need to be minimally multiplayer, the equivalent of a pen-and-paper campaign with a group of trusted friends.

The killer ap that I honestly think would be a huge hit would be:

a) extremely large procedurally-generated world.
b) world filled with tons of miniplots, quests, NPC factions, and autonomous-agent AI NPCs with a constant flow of DLC adding new stuff on a monthly basis, seeded into existing worlds or into new ones.
c) intended for groups of trusted friends between 5-50 people or so to participate in a single persistent iteration of such a world.
d) maybe allow for the initiating 'host' of a given generated world to hand-edit, customize and otherwise mod a world.

And I think it's possible. But getting even close to this requires forgetting every MMO that has ever existed, and it requires abandoning the idea of thousands of strangers playing together in a given world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2013, 08:49:23 AM
In my opinion, the way for the genre to move on is to get rid of two things: Levels and Quest-Treadmill based content.
Leveling is indeed content that will only be consumed a couple of times, you're right. But that doesn't matter. Let me put it this way. Back in the early 2000s there were a bunch of multiplayer-only shooters, like Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament, a bunch of Battlefields, Quake Wars, etc. None of them were particularly successful. They did OK, but nothing like Modern Warfare, Battlefield, etc, do today.

That high quality quickly consumed content is the hook that gets people in the door. It's what gets them to buy an expansion, or a new entry in your franchise every year. Multiplayer Call of Duty: Ghosts isn't particularly different from the last CoD. So why did CoD:Ghosts sell through so many copies? It's a known recipe for success. If you tried to release a MMO that was only the endgame, you'd face a similar challenge. The cost of entry is so much higher for MMOs that nobody can take the chance.

There's more to it too; the leveling portion is usually the best part of the game. I buy each WoW expansion as it comes out, level up my guys to max, do a couple dungeons, then quit until the next expansion or patch comes out with new content. That's how I consume MMOs-- it is what I believe to be the healthiest way.

And lastly, procedural content is fucking boring.  Everquest Next is not relying on procedural content; it's the exact opposite. They're relying upon player-created content. And that is the right answer. Whether EQN will execute on its promise is another question entirely.

I don't think you can compare PVP and PVE games. The majority of CoD players play multiplayer PVP matches right? (I'm not an FPS guy so correct me if I'm wrong) PVP games can usually outlast other games because you are just creating maps and rulesets. Same thing with MOBAs.

As far as leveling, WOW's leveling is the most fun to a lot of people, because that is the game they are buying in to. I'm talking about future games. And I don't think the genre will ever evolve until that's taken out. But you can always go back to WOW and play what they always did best: Leveling.

Procedural content, player create content, whatever. To me that falls into the same classification as "shit is a bit different than the last time I came around these parts - let's see what's different". Because exploration in MMOs is non existent after the first time your run around. I want to be able to play a game so when I come back to an area there might be something else going on, maybe. That means the world map needs to be bigger so people aren't running around the world looking for new events and then globally announcing them like Rift invasions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 26, 2013, 08:52:57 AM
The issue that I see is the conflict between theme park and open world philosophy.  WoW players enjoy a theme park while UO enthusiasts prefer a more open world.  You're NEVER going to appeal to both crowds, so you just have to get over that before release.  Pick a concept and stick with it.  Stop trying to be everything to everyone.  Learn from your predecessors (GW2, CoH, UO, WoW) but don't emulate them too closely. 

I think that open world pvp can also be fun, but you'd have to adopt the GW2 map mechanic of scaling people to the zone.  It would eliminate the high level gank problem so common in mature games making entry much more palatable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 26, 2013, 08:53:16 AM
I still think Mount and Blade combat in an MMO setting would fly off the shelves.

And if it already exists, it needs better marketing.

Persistent World 4.4.0 - download and general discussion (http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=160403.0)

Not for the Faint at heart.

My Friends and I have been playing this, and it kinda took us a bit to get over a death. Once we realized its not as harsh as it sounds, and could shake what other MMO like games have tought us ( Death is bad, you now must spend 20 hours grinding ), we have had some incredible fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on November 26, 2013, 08:56:31 AM
Procedural content, player create content, whatever. To me that falls into the same classification as "shit is a bit different than the last time I came around these parts - let's see what's different". Because exploration in MMOs is non existent after the first time your run around. I want to be able to play a game so when I come back to an area there might be something else going on, maybe. That means the world map needs to be bigger so people aren't running around the world looking for new events and then globally announcing them like Rift invasions.
Yes, you want to consume new content each time you play, and that is totally key. Player-generated content is the only way to get there. Text MUDs had that back in the 80s and 90s, you could graduate to "wizard" and create your own rooms and encounters, but it was lost in translation to graphical MUDs with EQ1. We're just now starting to really explore that space in graphical MUDs, with Neverwinter's baby steps. EQ Next promises to embrace it, which would be very exciting if we weren't already aware of SOE's track record.

Procedural means "automatically generated". Like when you generate a new minecraft world, or random dungeons in a roguelike. That shit is boring. Very different from rich lovingly player-generated content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2013, 08:57:52 AM
New guy is basically right, I think.

It's a case of path-dependence. MMOs built their entire DNA up out of Diku and there are fundamental problems in that basic ancestry that have gotten more and more lethal with each successive generation from the parent. It's a cul-de-sac.



I would definitely agree that the DIKU based MMORPG is completely hacked up and dead at this point. Completely over-developed and saturated. There have been way to many interations on the the standard problems of the genre that you have a stack of 50 bandaids on top of each other and it's sloppy. Proof in point in a lot of what they're doing in the WOW expansion. They completely ripped out some old systems.

The next interesting DIKU game is one that goes back to basics most likely.

Also your a-b-c list almost describes what I know of Trove by Trion. Heh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2013, 09:00:54 AM
Procedural content, player create content, whatever. To me that falls into the same classification as "shit is a bit different than the last time I came around these parts - let's see what's different". Because exploration in MMOs is non existent after the first time your run around. I want to be able to play a game so when I come back to an area there might be something else going on, maybe. That means the world map needs to be bigger so people aren't running around the world looking for new events and then globally announcing them like Rift invasions.
Yes, you want to consume new content each time you play, and that is totally key. Player-generated content is the only way to get there. Text MUDs had that back in the 80s and 90s, you could graduate to "wizard" and create your own rooms and encounters, but it was lost in translation to graphical MUDs with EQ1. We're just now starting to really explore that space in graphical MUDs, with Neverwinter's baby steps. EQ Next promises to embrace it, which would be very exciting if we weren't already aware of SOE's track record.

Procedural means "automatically generated". Like when you generate a new minecraft world, or random dungeons in a roguelike. That shit is boring. Very different from rich lovingly player-generated content.

I know the difference between procedural and player generated. I want both and I think both can work. EQN will have both so it'll be interesting to watch to see if it works.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on November 26, 2013, 09:23:57 AM
I think the way I see player and procedural content relating is what I might call "curation". If players have to build adventures/worlds from scratch but with a bunch of already-made objects (or if building from scratch means doing a lot of coding), you get mostly crap (Spore Galactic Adventures or NWN). If an environment is 100% procedural, even when it's fun (Minecraft) it ultimately has a sameness to it. What you need is a procedural environment that then gets populated with a lot of hand-made objects, miniplots, NPCs and so on created by players and developers and where the overall game keeps things in motion and makes the world persistent.

So I want not just a sense that the next time I visit a place, things are different, but that:

a) the difference "makes sense"--isn't just random
b) the difference has something to do with what happened the last time I was there

-------

I also don't think there are that many people who really do want a theme park with lots of static rides. I think there are a lot of people who got used to settling for a theme park when what they were really looking for was an open world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on November 26, 2013, 11:06:13 AM
I think there is plenty of room for innovation, it's just that no one has taken the leap yet.  Hell, just steal the good systems for other games:

-  Horizontal instead of vertical advancement a la EvE.  If you want to specialize in an area it won't take you very long to get decently good at it, it will take longer to get to true mastery (and the difference between mastery and decently good being between 2-5%).  Mastery in all areas will effectively take forever.
-  PvE gameplay via events and and living story a la GW2 focus on open world content to give the feel of a large community.
-  PvP gameplay featuring large world PvP segregated from small group PvP.  Small group PvP has standardized gear to appeal to the "skill" based community.  Greater than 2 sides for larger battles (ala Eve and GW2)
- Player housing, crafting and wardrobe assets ala LOTRO  Trophies from PvP and PvE can show up in your houses and guild halls.

I would play that game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2013, 11:35:59 AM
I guess it wouldn't be f13 if we didn't have to have the "but really what people want is open world" conversation around every game. Based on this discussion I assume you all backed Pathfinder.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 26, 2013, 12:02:05 PM
I guess it wouldn't be f13 if we didn't have to have the "but really what people want is open world" conversation around every game. Based on this discussion I assume you all backed Pathfinder.

I think open world fails miserably in the mass market.  Today's MMO consumers prefers a theme park that has the illusion of an open world.  I just don't think most of them know it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on November 26, 2013, 12:18:27 PM
(Meh, a tangent - voluntarily pulled. Carry on!)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on November 26, 2013, 12:19:33 PM
If players have to build adventures/worlds from scratch but with a bunch of already-made objects (or if building from scratch means doing a lot of coding), you get mostly crap (Spore Galactic Adventures or NWN).
Not a great example there. NWN had hundreds of high quality player-created modules. Dozens of those were even professional quality. Of course that was out of a pool of thousands, but if that scaled, imagine how player-created content might work a MMO with millions of players.

That said, yes, of course procedural content has a place in minimizing tedium. It's great for generating terrain, making trees look different, positioning boulders, etc. It makes excellent backdrops. It doesn't make for compelling content.

I don't like open worlds myself. What I really want is a themepark full of unique compelling lovingly crafted content where I can experience new stories and challenges every single time I log in. I want the modern WoW leveling experience to last forever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 26, 2013, 01:16:16 PM
Yeah. To act like the EQ1/WOW sub levels are the main marker of success and shearing that marker from all historical context is bonkers. It's not just that WOW was solid, it's that it came at a time before a lot of other time wasters and we were all 10 years younger.

It reminds me a bit of the days when pen and paper RPGs were big. We're arguably in a golden age of tabletop gaming but there's a ton of whining because it doesn't feel like the old days with million copy selling games and hobby stores on every corner. Well, no, but that's the wrong fucking comparison. People grew up, different things filled the space that 22 year olds used to fill with that particular strain of gaming, and that's okay. It's okay that Well-regarded Game X doesn't sell as much as AD&D 2nd when it launched because it's a totally different world.

And it's okay that LOTRO (since we need an example) doesn't sell as much as WOW or EQ1 or whatever. People are employed, content is created, the lights are one, people who enjoy it are enjoying it. Everything related to past successes is frankly off-topic of anything which matters.

First off, quit putting "EQ1/WoW" together like that as if they represent the same bar for success. EQ1 was something like 4% the size of WoW, prime-for-prime, and first came out in an era when only maybe half of Americans even owned a computer and even fewer actually had the fucking internet. The fact that nothing in the West, except for WoW, has been able to convincingly trounce it ever since is outrageously damning.

You want to make comparisons to PnP gaming? Cool. Let's imagine a world where absolutely nothing else can sustain even one-tenth one-twentieth the success of AD&D, and where almost everyone who tries ends up with their asshole blown inside out and a gigantic multimillion dollar hole drilled into their bank account. Let's imagine White Wolf going tits-up after VtM fails to outsell that first D&D set from the seventies, dumpsters full of Shadowrun boxes, a virtual holocaust where supporters of the genre have to go back in time seven years just to find an example of a mildly profitable PnP game that actually made it to a second book without the company being dismembered first.

Boy, that sounds like a healthy industry.

The last eight or so years of frantic high-dollar MMO development have been a reaction to World of Warcraft. Development in the future will be a reaction to the bloodbath of the last eight years. Make of that what you will.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
You type angry don't you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 26, 2013, 01:31:23 PM
You want to make comparisons to PnP gaming? Cool. Let's imagine a world where absolutely nothing else can sustain even one-tenth one-twentieth the success of AD&D, and where almost everyone who tries ends up with their asshole blown inside out and a gigantic multimillion dollar hole drilled into their bank account.

You keep claiming this when it is absolutely not true.  Just because there have been no WoW level successes doesn't mean every game was a huge financial failure.  Even the worst fuck ups like Warhammer online had something like 2 million box sales, almost if not enough to pay for the game by itself.  In fact the only game i can think off that was a huge financial wreck was probably APB. Everything else has been some flavor of "moderately profitable" to "at least we made our money back" as a worst case scenario, and while that certainly does not inspire a lot of confidence in future investors it also doesn't have them running scared like the non stop catastrophic failures you are implying would have.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 26, 2013, 01:32:56 PM
MMO development is only an unhealthy industry because money is slow to recognize iterative behavior even when it fails. Making the same thing as something successful, even when it's failed countless times to produce those results, is still considered a safe bet for years and years until the money machine finally turns. It's like a cruise liner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 26, 2013, 02:07:15 PM
I think open world fails miserably in the mass market.  Today's MMO consumers prefers a theme park that has the illusion of an open world.  I just don't think most of them know it.

I agree, If you want a broad demographic you need a scripted / directed progression. The single-player part of the big name shooters is showing us that too. "Open World" is more for the veterans, dedicated and strange and that's not the big dollar market they're dreaming of.

I think GW2's event model is a small step forward. Have a designed world where the events flow and react on a large scale basis to generate PvE goals and things to do. And then have the progression being about achievements and resources. Tabula Rasa, Defiance, Warhammer all made some baby-steps in this direction but you ended up with a lot of levelling content and small little set-piece events and the question of how you scale these to a variable number of participants.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 26, 2013, 02:08:32 PM
MMO development is only an unhealthy industry because money is slow to recognize iterative behavior even when it fails. Making the same thing as something successful, even when it's failed countless times to produce those results, is still considered a safe bet for years and years until the money machine finally turns. It's like a cruise liner.

Yet, many on this very board turn your noses up at those who are doing something differently.  For all this talk on this forum, I am quite comfortable in saying, its all talk. Many here are the problem, and you want more "Wow clones". Anything that steps outside of "the same" you chastise with no abandon on one side of the mouth, and talk about "will someone make something different" on the other. While rushing to the next derivative thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 02:18:05 PM
First off, quit putting "EQ1/WoW" together like that as if they represent the same bar for success. EQ1 was something like 4% the size of WoW, prime-for-prime, and first came out in an era when only maybe half of Americans even owned a computer and even fewer actually had the fucking internet. The fact that nothing in the West, except for WoW, has been able to convincingly trounce it ever since is outrageously damning.

You want to make comparisons to PnP gaming? Cool. Let's imagine a world where absolutely nothing else can sustain even one-tenth one-twentieth the success of AD&D, and where almost everyone who tries ends up with their asshole blown inside out and a gigantic multimillion dollar hole drilled into their bank account. Let's imagine White Wolf going tits-up after VtM fails to outsell that first D&D set from the seventies, dumpsters full of Shadowrun boxes, a virtual holocaust where supporters of the genre have to go back in time seven years just to find an example of a mildly profitable PnP game that actually made it to a second book without the company being dismembered first.

Boy, that sounds like a healthy industry.

The last eight or so years of frantic high-dollar MMO development have been a reaction to World of Warcraft. Development in the future will be a reaction to the bloodbath of the last eight years. Make of that what you will.

Jesus Christ, ace, I do not know how many times I have to keep repeating myself: WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT DOES NOT MATTER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY SUBS LOTRO PULLED IN COMPARED TO EQ. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY BOX SALES WERE PULLED IN BY GW2 IN COMPARISON TO WOW. IT DOES NOT MATTER IT DOES NOT MATTER IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Your basic fucking premise, the thing you are fucking sperglording over, does not matter. There is not a world where success is measured by sub numbers compared to EQ1. IT DOES NOT MATTER STOP TALKING ABOUT IT SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Your definition of what a commercial success is in the MMO industry is wrong and bad and you should stop talking about it.

I'm not going to repeat what matters. It's been stated over and over.

To boot, MMO studios don't exist in some realm where they close at a more rapid clip than normal PC studios, at least not appreciably so. There's a problem with the entire industry, not just with MMOs in this cordoned off space, when it comes to studio closings and layoffs.

Also, White Wolf more or less closed down. You're living in that dystopian world you're talking about. Except that dystopian world offers a lot of creative freedom, a lot of creator control of IP and the means of production, and it's kind of rad. I'd like to talk about it with you if you can get off this fucking kick about subs versus EQ1 in this weird vacuum world you live in!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 26, 2013, 02:22:28 PM
You keep claiming this when it is absolutely not true.  Just because there have been no WoW level successes doesn't mean every game was a huge financial failure.

Looking at the Western MMO industry and saying "their have been no WoW level successes" is like looking at a 400 pound man with no legs and saying he isn't an elite kickboxer. Sure it's technically true, but it sort of belies the scale of the difference at hand. Not only can no one pull off another WoW, no one seems able to pull off WoW minus ninety percent. When's the last time an MMO even grew in it's second year? LOTRO again?

Quote
Even the worst fuck ups like Warhammer online had something like 2 million box sales, almost if not enough to pay for the game by itself.  In fact the only game i can think off that was a huge financial wreck was probably APB. Everything else has been some flavor of "moderately profitable" to "at least we made our money back" as a worst case scenario, and while that certainly does not inspire a lot of confidence in future investors it also doesn't have them running scared like the non stop catastrophic failures you are implying would have.

Spending a hundred million dollars and only just breaking even when your product launches years later IS a huge financial failure, and will absolutely send investors running for the hills when they finally figure out that it's about the best they can expect. Or to put it another way, if you have to lay half the company off, you probably didn't break even enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 02:30:49 PM
That is not endemic to the MMO portion of the industry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 26, 2013, 02:41:13 PM
Jesus Christ, ace, I do not know how many times I have to keep repeating myself: WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT DOES NOT MATTER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY SUBS LOTRO PULLED IN COMPARED TO EQ. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY BOX SALES WERE PULLED IN BY GW2 IN COMPARISON TO WOW. IT DOES NOT MATTER IT DOES NOT MATTER IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Sorry asshole, but the fact that none of these games CAN CONVINCE ANYONE TO ACTUALLY PAY ANY GOD DAMN MONEY TO PLAY THEM fucking MATTERS. The fact that they compare unfavorably in that regard to a game that was objectively awful and came out when half of everyone didn't have a computer or the internet yet is just a really handy way of pointing out how great the failure is.

No, champ, the problem isn't that there are no successes on the scale of WoW. You can quit saying that, because it makes you sound like a fucking moron. The problem is that if you set aside WoW, this is a genre that fucking peaked a decade ago and hasn't done anything but generate headlines about spectacular trainwrecks in years.

But hey, when this Elder Scrolls shit comes out and it's just a horrible fucking disastrous failure, and when Wildstar comes out and nobody gives a shit about that either, just hug your knees and tell yourself what a healthy and thriving genre this is, even though it hasn't produced a game anyone gives a fucking shit about since Bush was in office.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 26, 2013, 02:46:23 PM
My god you are dense.  Just because they are not getting WoW numbers doesn't mean they are not making sizable profits.  GW2 has content patches every 2 god damn weeks, I'm sure they are just flushing money down the toilet.  EQ2  LOTRO and SWTOR are still shitting out expansions.  RIFT by all accounts was highly successful and doing even better as F2P.  Your "not WoW = massive failure" claim has absolutely no basis in fact.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 02:47:44 PM
Let me back up just a second because in my rush to shit on you I missed something.

Quote

Spending a hundred million dollars and only just breaking even when your product launches years later IS a huge financial failure,


So what you're saying is that the measure of success isn't in raw subs or subs vs past successes but... SUBS VS COST?!?!?!?!

WELL GODDAMN, BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE AND SHUT IT DOWN! WHAT A FUCKING UNIQUE INSIGHT!

You don't know what you're even arguing. You're just really mad that there's this thing you like and you wish it was better but you don't know how and you sort of want to define success by comparing it to this thing that happened and even though LOTRO, the repeated example, is doing just fucking fine for a ten year old sub game it's apparently really a gigantic failure because FAAAARRRTTTT.

Real quick: given that the layoff rate in the video game industry as a whole is twice the national average, do you think the Funcom team doing TSW/AOC work, which has had the same core for nearly ten years now (I can speak to this both because I worked there and because I still know lots of people there) despite layoffs, considers their games more of a failure than the folks who worked at THQ? Which studio has left more money on the table? Which studio laid more people off in the years 2001-2012?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on November 26, 2013, 02:47:52 PM
If you think about it isn't the measure of whether or not an MMO is a success or failure is the gulf between what was promised and what was delivered? Sub numbers and profitability obviously matter, but when people on this board say "it was a failure" don't they mean "it was supposed to be the next big thing and ended up not doing much"?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2013, 02:49:41 PM
If you think about it isn't the measure of whether or not an MMO is a success or failure is the gulf between what was promised and what was delivered? Sub numbers and profitability obviously matter, but when people on this board say "it was a failure" don't they mean "it was supposed to be the next big thing and ended up not doing much"?

YOU WOULD THINK!

But apparently it's "subs" and "beating EQ1" or something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 26, 2013, 03:19:19 PM
Regardless of how many subs = success or failure (which no one on this board is qualified to answer), the fact of the matter is that it is extremely hard for a company to justify putting out an MMO that actually pushes the envelope in a meaningful way because it costs WAY too much to make an MMO.  SOE is only able to justify it with EQN because they have a plethora of normal MMOs and need something new to actually gain back marketshare instead of cannabalizing their existing products.  Most companies don't have that luxery and can't risk blowing all their investment capital on trying out new MMO ideas.  It can easily bankrupt a company (and it has several times).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 26, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
MMO development is only an unhealthy industry because money is slow to recognize iterative behavior even when it fails. Making the same thing as something successful, even when it's failed countless times to produce those results, is still considered a safe bet for years and years until the money machine finally turns. It's like a cruise liner.

Yet, many on this very board turn your noses up at those who are doing something differently.  For all this talk on this forum, I am quite comfortable in saying, its all talk. Many here are the problem, and you want more "Wow clones". Anything that steps outside of "the same" you chastise with no abandon on one side of the mouth, and talk about "will someone make something different" on the other. While rushing to the next derivative thing.

No, you're projecting because your special snowflake project is getting plowed.

Also, nobody is rushing to this project. Or Wildstar. If you can't read between the lines on that, I'm not sure what to tell you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on November 26, 2013, 03:47:39 PM
Also "different" does not necessarily mean "something good" or even "something any given person would enjoy." I know my tastes well enough that some innovations floated would probably not please me. That doesn't mean I'm sneering at people doing different shit, it just means the game isn't for me. Oh no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 26, 2013, 03:49:06 PM
Yeah, you don't get a pat on the head just for being different.  Your game also has to actually be good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 26, 2013, 04:04:19 PM
Or at least good enough that enough people are willing to buy it and pay X amount of revenue towards it, enough to be profitable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2013, 04:23:22 PM
Yeah, you don't get a pat on the head just for being different.  Your game also has to actually be good.

Oh you and your unreasonable expectations of gameplay instead of pretty pictures and feature lists for the future.

EQ Next got a lot of love here for the promise of something new and different, then we woke-up and said, "Well, let's see what they deliver first."

Plenty of games that have tried something different or even slightly off the WoW-clone track have gotten our attention but then just flopped because most MMO game devs appear to fall into two flavors.  Moronic manchildren who can't run a project competently or passionate guys who can't figure out how to make their game entertaining long-term.

Also, Bloodworth, you're misreading the signal:noise here.  Those not interested in a game tend to drop the thread or forum early on when it's obvious it's not interesting to them.  TSW got a lot of love from a small portion of the population here, as did GW2 but it was still "just a DIKU" to many who dropped out early because they want the next UO.  Which hasn't been peeked at in over a decade and a half at this point.  They'll talk about what they want all day long, realize the game doesn't have it and move on.   

So in that many are backing-up their words quite well.  Meanwhile I'm a theme park player, I like my MMOs wow-like and full of point of interest and quest hubs.  I only care about 'on rails' if I can't hop around a zone, not about breadcrumbs and 'handholding' like "!"   What kills things for me are time investment or cutting off access to parts because "you're not h@rdc0r3 enuff!"   SWG was fun until the endgame, but had a few too many buttons for my liking.  GW2 is fun once or twice a week now that I'm maxed.  TSW is boring to me because the zones take too damn long and I want something simpler than "figure out your own class from this skill list. If you suck it's your fault!"  Nope, no time for that bullshit, thanks.

So when some of us say "we want something different" we're always thinking of specifics to our own tastes.  Quelle surprise!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 26, 2013, 04:38:23 PM
but the fact that none of these games CAN CONVINCE ANYONE TO ACTUALLY PAY ANY GOD DAMN MONEY TO PLAY THEM

Stop typing stupid things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 26, 2013, 04:41:06 PM
Didn't get into the beta weekend.

So what if I were to pretend this wasn't an MMO and just play it as a single player elder scrolls game, would I still be disappointed?  It would have to be worse than Oblivion for me to be disappointed btw.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 26, 2013, 04:45:10 PM
That's a good question Miasma, and my answer is yes you would be majorly disappointed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 26, 2013, 05:02:26 PM
You'd be disappointed even harder.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on November 26, 2013, 07:14:15 PM
Didn't get into the beta weekend.

So what if I were to pretend this wasn't an MMO and just play it as a single player elder scrolls game, would I still be disappointed?  It would have to be worse than Oblivion for me to be disappointed btw.

What if you were to pretend it wasn't a single-player game and try to play it like an MMO?   Yup, still disappointed.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 26, 2013, 07:20:33 PM
So what if I were to pretend this wasn't an MMO and just play it as a single player elder scrolls game, would I still be disappointed?  It would have to be worse than Oblivion for me to be disappointed btw.

I don't have access to NDA-restricted info, beta, or anything like that.  But from the info posted so far on the official site, and the features described here, I would guess that you CANNOT play this as a single player Elder Scrolls game.  Not just because Elder Scrolls games require mods (their combat, spellcasting, inventory, and UI systems have been crap in every game and had to be modded to be playable/usable) and there are no mods for this game, but also because you can't free-form explore as in the single player game because it's a damn MMO with levels, level-based zones, level-based monster agro radii, and PVP once you're out of the newbie area.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 26, 2013, 07:46:15 PM
You'd be disappointed even harder.

 :rock:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 27, 2013, 05:00:23 AM
Okay, well, that ruins my plan.  I knew it was going to be a terrible mmo but still hoped some fun could be had in the content if I pretended it was single player.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 27, 2013, 06:19:14 AM
Why in the world do raw sub numbers matter at all?

Because people got excited about the 'massively' part of MMOs.

Unfortunately that doesn't work anymore. Other players are stupid / malicious / incompetent and the dream of having large groups of people play together in a shared world was shattered by clouds of flying penises.

On top of which in order to reach the base set of MMO features - the ones that players say you can't launch a game without - costs even more every year and against ever growing numbers of competing titles. So the MMO development budgets get bigger while the chance of having a financial success (and not one based on firing everyone in the company to keep the game afloat) grows smaller. Which is why MMOs aren't being made in significant numbers by Western developers any more and the two titles about to launch in TESO and Wildstar started development 7 or so years ago.

Raw sub numbers are representations of a title's performance in an industry where nearly all financial and non-financial markers  of a game's success is hidden. Of course, it's been diluted by having more titles to play, so that where EQ1 was up against only a small number of competitors, EQN is facing down dozens, including EQ1.

Thumbs up, new guy. We used to be angry like you but time has wearied us. F13 is where forum warriors come to die.

I should go to bed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on November 27, 2013, 09:20:51 AM
Raw sub numbers mean dickall. They're just one of the models, including the 2-3 other models each individual game gets now. Even back in the day subs were a fun thing to banter about, but each company's requirements are different. One company's million subs failure is another company's 100k success. Only the press release and forum warrior crowd made the comparisons in simple-to-argue terms.

You don't know what you're even arguing. You're just really mad that there's this thing you like and you wish it was better but you don't know how and you sort of want to define success by comparing it to this thing that happened and even though LOTRO, the repeated example, is doing just fucking fine for a ten year old sub game it's apparently really a gigantic failure because FAAAARRRTTTT.

This. But come on, every so often we need a Wizgar to come in and make all the old arguments we've long since forgotten about  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on November 27, 2013, 09:25:22 AM
The killer ap that I honestly think would be a huge hit would be:

a) extremely large procedurally-generated world.
b) world filled with tons of miniplots, quests, NPC factions, and autonomous-agent AI NPCs with a constant flow of DLC adding new stuff on a monthly basis, seeded into existing worlds or into new ones.
c) intended for groups of trusted friends between 5-50 people or so to participate in a single persistent iteration of such a world.
d) maybe allow for the initiating 'host' of a given generated world to hand-edit, customize and otherwise mod a world.

And I think it's possible. But getting even close to this requires forgetting every MMO that has ever existed, and it requires abandoning the idea of thousands of strangers playing together in a given world.
So you're basically saying that the last, best hope for MMO development is...SOE?

 :awesome_for_real:

Why in the world do raw sub numbers matter at all?

Because people got excited about the 'massively' part of MMOs.

Unfortunately that doesn't work anymore. Other players are stupid / malicious / incompetent and the dream of having large groups of people play together in a shared world was shattered by clouds of flying penises.
Goon Squad says hello, friend!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on November 27, 2013, 10:02:33 AM
Okay, well, that ruins my plan.  I knew it was going to be a terrible mmo but still hoped some fun could be had in the content if I pretended it was single player.
That's possibly the only way to be more disappointed than going in for the MMO


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2013, 10:04:24 AM
MMO development is only an unhealthy industry because money is slow to recognize iterative behavior even when it fails. Making the same thing as something successful, even when it's failed countless times to produce those results, is still considered a safe bet for years and years until the money machine finally turns. It's like a cruise liner.

Yet, many on this very board turn your noses up at those who are doing something differently.  For all this talk on this forum, I am quite comfortable in saying, its all talk. Many here are the problem, and you want more "Wow clones". Anything that steps outside of "the same" you chastise with no abandon on one side of the mouth, and talk about "will someone make something different" on the other. While rushing to the next derivative thing.

No, you're projecting because your special snowflake project is getting plowed.

Also, nobody is rushing to this project. Or Wildstar. If you can't read between the lines on that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Nope, my comment can also be applied to the game public at large, at least those who live on the net and forums. The cycle repeats itself over and over again here. The same discussions, like what this thread has turned too repeat themselves.

Sampled on a larger level, we get more derivative stuff. IE: That's where the money goes.

Also "different" does not necessarily mean "something good" or even "something any given person would enjoy." I know my tastes well enough that some innovations floated would probably not please me. That doesn't mean I'm sneering at people doing different shit, it just means the game isn't for me. Oh no.

That's a given.

Yeah, you don't get a pat on the head just for being different.  Your game also has to actually be good.

Of course, but some of the responses are simply robotic at this point. Details be dammed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 27, 2013, 10:11:08 AM
I disagree, you can point to the exact point in this thread early in the project where people saw it was a derivative wow clone and the interest tanked. Now it's just waitingfor  train to got the station and kill everyone still on board.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2013, 10:30:00 AM
I disagree, you can point to the exact point in this thread early in the project where people saw it was a derivative wow clone and the interest tanked.

Yeah, that's where the conversations generally start about "Why won't any one make something different" and "What we want is...". The Cycle continues.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 27, 2013, 11:08:35 AM
The killer ap that I honestly think would be a huge hit would be:

a) extremely large procedurally-generated world.
b) world filled with tons of miniplots, quests, NPC factions, and autonomous-agent AI NPCs with a constant flow of DLC adding new stuff on a monthly basis, seeded into existing worlds or into new ones.
c) intended for groups of trusted friends between 5-50 people or so to participate in a single persistent iteration of such a world.
d) maybe allow for the initiating 'host' of a given generated world to hand-edit, customize and otherwise mod a world.

And I think it's possible. But getting even close to this requires forgetting every MMO that has ever existed, and it requires abandoning the idea of thousands of strangers playing together in a given world.
So you're basically saying that the last, best hope for MMO development is...SOE?

Unironically yes. Are there any high budget MMOs which look as if they're even trying to do anything really innovative in the works, except for EQNext? At least, if we exclude games made in Korea which may or may not ever be relased in the West.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Different is not the same thing as good, and iteration is not a dirty word - neither is derivative.

If TESO's only flaw was that it was "derivative" people wouldn't be chewing off the insides of their cheeks for not being able to talk about this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on November 27, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
I disagree, you can point to the exact point in this thread early in the project where people saw it was a derivative wow clone and the interest tanked.

Yeah, that's where the conversations generally start about "Why won't any one make something different" and "What we want is...". The Cycle continues.

There's wanting something different, and there is also seeing something different that has been done before and sucked. Being not a WoW clone is an awesome starting idea, but then going "we'll just add permadeath and full corpse looting to it and call ourselves hardcore!" is not a good second step for a lot of people.

Anywho, some of my favorite games are derivative. Because simply polishing the concept of something people know is fun makes a polished fun game (.. usually). People bash on the endless unchanging series where there is no iteration, just the same fucking thing released over and over. But if you're still actually adding new shit to it I usually won't bag on you.

TESO seems to have a bunch of problems where it's actually trying to be different and from the leaks it's just not that fun. Wildstar seems to have the opposite issue where it's basically asking you if you really really loved WoW 1.0 with maybe a few additional features, and would you like to play that again.

Personally, I don't see MMOs as in very much trouble as a genre. While we're all bitter jaded assholes here, I still go to work and listen to people breathlessly discuss their MMO exploits, or gaming sessions of things that came out years ago. I suspect that we, the pissy people who think TESO and Wildstar sound like nothing to get too excited about may not actually be the target audience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on November 27, 2013, 01:53:01 PM
The killer ap that I honestly think would be a huge hit would be:

a) extremely large procedurally-generated world.
b) world filled with tons of miniplots, quests, NPC factions, and autonomous-agent AI NPCs with a constant flow of DLC adding new stuff on a monthly basis, seeded into existing worlds or into new ones.
c) intended for groups of trusted friends between 5-50 people or so to participate in a single persistent iteration of such a world.
d) maybe allow for the initiating 'host' of a given generated world to hand-edit, customize and otherwise mod a world.

And I think it's possible. But getting even close to this requires forgetting every MMO that has ever existed, and it requires abandoning the idea of thousands of strangers playing together in a given world.
So you're basically saying that the last, best hope for MMO development is...SOE?

 :awesome_for_real:

I think he's actually saying the last, best hope is to go back to playing MUDs. Or maybe NWN.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2013, 02:56:06 PM
Your best hope for enjoying an MMORPG again is stop playing and thinking about them for about 2-5 years (your mileage may vary) then pick one up again that you never played before. I'm also assuming something shiny will come out in that space of time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on November 27, 2013, 04:04:44 PM
Yeah, a WoW expansion.  :grin:
(I was originally going to say 'two WoW expansions' but, well, Blizzard)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 28, 2013, 05:18:40 AM
You know when we stopped caring about subscription numbers around here? About 5 years ago. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8995.0)

Too bad you missed it, new guy, you would have had a lot of fun on f13 in 2007 or so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on November 28, 2013, 06:07:20 AM
At least one industry will profit from this game's release. (http://i.imgur.com/AdoSKD1.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on November 28, 2013, 09:11:44 AM
You don't know what you're even arguing. You're just really mad that there's this thing you like and you wish it was better but you don't know how and you sort of want to define success by comparing it to this thing that happened and even though LOTRO, the repeated example, is doing just fucking fine for a ten year old sub game it's apparently really a gigantic failure because FAAAARRRTTTT.

It's a genre with zero innovation and a business scene so dire that a would-be defender has to repeatedly flog the very mild success of a game from 2007.

That's about all that needs to be said.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on November 28, 2013, 09:17:04 AM
You don't know what you're even arguing. You're just really mad that there's this thing you like and you wish it was better but you don't know how and you sort of want to define success by comparing it to this thing that happened and even though LOTRO, the repeated example, is doing just fucking fine for a ten year old sub game it's apparently really a gigantic failure because FAAAARRRTTTT.

It's a genre with zero innovation and a business scene so dire that a would-be defender has to repeatedly flog the very mild success of a game from 2007.

That's about all that needs to be said.

FPS games?

Actually: any non indie gaming?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on November 28, 2013, 09:32:59 AM
Once you extricate yourself from the hype chain, perpetrated as much by the fans as the developers, you stop being disappointed so often.  I understand why the guys with money are looking for the next WoW, but why does the average gamer care so much?  Are you also waiting for the next Twilight inspired romantic tween trilogy?  The next 6 year long dramatic television event?  The Cowboys to win the Super bowl?  Stop worrying whether or not a game is perfect and whether or not 10 million other people like it and just worry about whether or not you do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 28, 2013, 11:15:11 AM
It might stun you, but you wont hear of they whom the judges on "the X Factor" or "American Idioto"l are saying stuff like "I was totally Amazed" and "you are the real thing" ever again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 28, 2013, 02:40:37 PM
It's a genre with zero innovation and a business scene so dire that a would-be defender has to repeatedly flog the very mild success of a game from 2007.

That's about all that needs to be said.

I don't know how to tell you this but you're talking about video games


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on November 28, 2013, 05:21:32 PM
Sub is the first on the road to disappointment in MMORPG.
Honestly, I can't be bothered to pay full price for single player games anymore, you want me to pay full box price at launch and on top of that pay $15 monthly subs?
Get out of here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 29, 2013, 05:25:41 AM
I'm the opposite of that; there are so many things in my life that are a "service" now and require subscription, from music to internet access to movies on the TV to health and car insurance and other various bills, that I'm at the point where I think "what's another $15"?

From the MMO industry point of view, I imagine that $15 is an issue, because there will be an uproar if they dare try to charge $20 or $30 to match inflation, so I think many of them are switching to the "free to play" model simply because they can get more money out of their customers that way.  I'd rather not have to pay more than the $15-$30 per month, and it would suck if I had to deal with disabled interface elements, a quarter of the bag storage space, inability to wear purples, etc., in order to not spend more than $30 per month to play the MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on November 29, 2013, 06:41:30 AM
I long ago reached the point where my mentality was "eh, it's $15, another sub." However, since there are high quality games (Rift, TSW) that don't require me to pay, I'm a lot less likely to subscribe to something unless it's massively compelling.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 29, 2013, 06:55:02 AM
While I have no problem paying $15/month I expect to play any such game actively (and will quite quickly stop paying the sub if I find myself not playing almost daily). 
As for paying a full price for a game I have no problems with that either if I really want to play some game though such games are getting rarer and rarer it seems.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on November 29, 2013, 08:14:51 AM
From the MMO industry point of view, I imagine that $15 is an issue, because there will be an uproar if they dare try to charge $20 or $30 to match inflation, so I think many of them are switching to the "free to play" model simply because they can get more money out of their customers that way.

It's funny because I was paying $10 for a subscription in 1997. That same $10 adjusted for inflation is still less than what I'm being charged today.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 29, 2013, 08:22:21 AM
I really don't have a problem paying 15 a month. What REALLY bothers me about a subscription model is that I now know the moment I stop playing the game I am done with it forever, cause no I am not gonna resub and shell out 15 just to see if I like the new changes or if I still want to play that kind of game. And these days, knowing that, I feel much less interested in a game if it has a sub because I feel it's too much "all or nothing", "now or never". Case in point, Final Fantasy XIV: I wanted to play it, but considering the sub, I decided it was going just another game I play for the first two or three months (paying the sub) and then I leave it behind to never come back because of the sub wall.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 29, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
That's it, WoW is the only sub game i have ever came back to.  GW2 is my "default" game now because of this.  Also if you ask for sub money your players are going to expect more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 29, 2013, 12:12:15 PM
Same. I've come back to WoW and yeah, that's about it. I kept trying EQ2 periodically because I wanted to like it but it makes me motion sick. Maybe Rift once?

Just recently, the SWTOR starfighting thing coming up had me really curious. I have to reroll, though, because my guild is gone on my old server. So I go to make a new character on my secondary (more active, weirdly) guild's server of choice. So many restrictions on choice that I'm more or less forced to resub. I fucked off and did something else with my time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on November 29, 2013, 12:31:23 PM
If you want space combat, you're playing the wrong franchised MMO. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=21809.0)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on November 29, 2013, 01:37:44 PM
Yeah, the Jury is out on STO ground combat (though I kinda like it) but there is zero complaints about the space combat other than cannons being far more effective than beams. But in PVE who cares really.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on November 29, 2013, 02:15:24 PM
I guess it wouldn't be f13 if we didn't have to have the "but really what people want is open world" conversation around every game. Based on this discussion I assume you all backed Pathfinder.

I think open world fails miserably in the mass market.  Today's MMO consumers prefers a theme park that has the illusion of an open world.  I just don't think most of them know it.

I think nobody's really tested it for a long time, so I think there's no basis for thinking it. Also "today's MMO consumers" basically equals WoW player plus a few handfuls in other games. It's like saying, "Today's Call of Duty players prefer Call of Duty". It's a tautology.

Also, again, massive multiplayer with strangers anything will suck a certain amount of cock, open world or otherwise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on November 30, 2013, 01:36:20 AM
The game I subbed to off and on most was CoX, but I will pop back into games I stopped playing on occasion to see what's what (although most of them have gone F2P so I don't have to sub, but I would if I did).

For me, it's not the sub that keeps me from trying a game I'd stopped playing so much as the "uggggh, I don't want to relearn how to play that game." I have some sort of weird mental block where if I'm playing a new game, not knowing wtf I'm doing is part of the charm. If it's something I've played before and a bunch of shit has changed, I knock over the game board really quickly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: K9 on November 30, 2013, 02:44:29 AM
and we were all 10 years younger.

I think this is one of the most relevant points made here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on November 30, 2013, 03:08:36 AM
I long ago reached the point where my mentality was "eh, it's $15, another sub." However, since there are high quality games (Rift, TSW) that don't require me to pay, I'm a lot less likely to subscribe to something unless it's massively compelling.

I agree with this.  There are now two fantasy (Rift, GW2) and two space (STO, SWTOR) f2p MMO's out there I play when I get an itch.  That makes it hard for a new $15 sub to entice me.  Been off of WoW for at least a year now.  For the first time in my modern gaming life there's no MMO or game really where I'm chomping at the bit for it.  I used to buy 2-3 $60 games a month.  Guess I'm getting old.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on November 30, 2013, 04:46:55 AM
I think the big thing about free to play alternatives is I may feel like I want to try a particular game that has a sub, but I can click an icon on the desktop and start playing it's F2P second cousin long enough for that itch to be scratched.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 30, 2013, 08:24:21 AM
I long ago reached the point where my mentality was "eh, it's $15, another sub." However, since there are high quality games (Rift, TSW) that don't require me to pay, I'm a lot less likely to subscribe to something unless it's massively compelling.

I agree with this.  There are now two fantasy (Rift, GW2) and two space (STO, SWTOR) f2p MMO's out there I play when I get an itch.  That makes it hard for a new $15 sub to entice me.  Been off of WoW for at least a year now.  For the first time in my modern gaming life there's no MMO or game really where I'm chomping at the bit for it.  I used to buy 2-3 $60 games a month.  Guess I'm getting old.

Yep, you're old. Next you'll move on to other hobbies with the rest of us old farts.  Puttering around in games once in a while but finding it's less and less of your free time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 30, 2013, 09:20:05 AM
Well, that might be the case, but I think the more interesting observation is that games are giving a comparable experience for free that other games are giving for 15 bucks a month, at least to a lot of people.  I have no problem paying a 15 dollar monthly fee for a game that's great, even if I'm going to play it a lot less than I used to play WoW or EVE.  15 bucks is only twice what I'll spend getting a coffee and a bagel sandwich for lunch at Brueger's.  The money isn't the deciding factor at that point.  But if I can get a good enough substitute for free, why not.  It's more an indictment of no one being able to make a good enough game to separate it from the scores of free to play alternatives.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 30, 2013, 10:54:12 AM
Meh.  I prefer dinner to dim sum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on November 30, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
Fifteen bucks is a very good value for a month of gaming.  Don't get me wrong.  Right around 50 cents a day.  But there's no 'shut up and take my money' MMO's out there for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 30, 2013, 07:23:21 PM
I have no problem paying 15 bucks a month, i just know i'll never come back to it once i stop. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 30, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
I bounce in and out of WoW at will these days. I'm coming up on the end of my 3 months there and I probably won't resub until the next xpac. I find the only fun times to play now are at the beginning of an xpac for 3 months, and after the last patch for 3 months. The rest is just middling garbage that fixes most of the cockblocks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 02, 2013, 06:34:16 AM
Just to clarify, are the veiled criticisms from beta testers  coming from (a) people criticizing it as an MMO, or (b) people thinking "Wtf they say this is an Elder Scrolls game, but I can't use mods to modify all ga m eplay and other people are doing the same "save the world" quests as me! whatsupwiththat??"

As with the movie forum, it is always hard to tell if I am listening to generally sane people or cranks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 02, 2013, 06:48:11 AM
Just to clarify, are the veiled criticisms from beta testers  coming from (a) people criticizing it as an MMO, or (b) people thinking "Wtf they say this is an Elder Scrolls game, but I can't use mods to modify all ga m eplay and other people are doing the same "save the world" quests as me! whatsupwiththat??"

As with the movie forum, it is always hard to tell if I am listening to generally sane people or cranks.

My personal stand is to just play anything that I'm interested in and judge for myself.  The opinions on these (and other) forums vary so wildly that it's hard to know if you're getting an objective review or just jaded commentary.  

I'll probably play this game when it releases if for no other reason than I enjoy the early arms race of any MMO. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 02, 2013, 06:51:15 AM
Personally, I am not emotionally involved with the Elder Scrolls saga. I like it, but I am not hardcore about it, so as long as it keeps the lore high and it stays different enough from cartoonish worlds, it is gonna sit right with me. What I am saying is that my personal expectations when it comes to "being Elder Scrolls" are low. I have one big gripe with what I've seen of the game so far, and it doesn't have to do with the lore, the feel, or my exhaustion with the genre. But it seems to be big enough to drive me away (so far).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 02, 2013, 07:05:13 AM
Once you extricate yourself from the hype chain, perpetrated as much by the fans as the developers, you stop being disappointed so often.  I understand why the guys with money are looking for the next WoW, but why does the average gamer care so much?  Are you also waiting for the next Twilight inspired romantic tween trilogy?  The next 6 year long dramatic television event?  The Cowboys to win the Super bowl?  Stop worrying whether or not a game is perfect and whether or not 10 million other people like it and just worry about whether or not you do.

Any post digging at the Cowboys is worth a quote.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 02, 2013, 07:07:56 AM
I really don't have a problem paying 15 a month. What REALLY bothers me about a subscription model is that I now know the moment I stop playing the game I am done with it forever, cause no I am not gonna resub and shell out 15 just to see if I like the new changes or if I still want to play that kind of game. And these days, knowing that, I feel much less interested in a game if it has a sub because I feel it's too much "all or nothing", "now or never". Case in point, Final Fantasy XIV: I wanted to play it, but considering the sub, I decided it was going just another game I play for the first two or three months (paying the sub) and then I leave it behind to never come back because of the sub wall.


The only way I play MMOs I used to play are when I get a free 1 week trial to come back (I usually don't last more than 4 hours) or when an expansion pack comes out for a really good one which is essentially WOW.

If I had time, I'd probably would of played through DDO's expansion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 02, 2013, 08:18:02 AM
Just to clarify, are the veiled criticisms from beta testers  coming from (a) people criticizing it as an MMO, or (b) people thinking "Wtf they say this is an Elder Scrolls game, but I can't use mods to modify all ga m eplay and other people are doing the same "save the world" quests as me! whatsupwiththat??"

As with the movie forum, it is always hard to tell if I am listening to generally sane people or cranks.

We can't really clarify anything :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on December 02, 2013, 09:16:59 AM
Just to clarify, are the veiled criticisms from beta testers  coming from (a) people criticizing it as an MMO, or (b) people thinking "Wtf they say this is an Elder Scrolls game, but I can't use mods to modify all ga m eplay and other people are doing the same "save the world" quests as me! whatsupwiththat??"

Why does it have to be one or the other?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on December 02, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
Just to clarify, are the veiled criticisms from beta testers  coming from (a) people criticizing it as an MMO, or (b) people thinking "Wtf they say this is an Elder Scrolls game, but I can't use mods to modify all ga m eplay and other people are doing the same "save the world" quests as me! whatsupwiththat??"

As with the movie forum, it is always hard to tell if I am listening to generally sane people or cranks.

Yes.  :oh_i_see:

Going from information not related to the beta weekend, they're making an MMO version of Elder Scrolls. That's typically a 180 of what Elder Scrolls games are already about. So who is a game like that supposed to attract, or better yet, who would stick with a game like that more so, MMO players or Elder Scrolls players? Pleasing both camps is going just end up pissing a good majority off. Most MMO players will flock to it and try out as it's thenextbigthing, undoubtedly get bored after a month or so and leave. And since we know it's your typical themepark style MMO, I don't see what's going to entice Elder Scrolls fans to stick around with it either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 02, 2013, 03:06:25 PM
Is it really that big a reach they'd make Elder Scrolls into an MMO?  And lets be fair, if its either a good Elder Scrolls game or a good MMO, it will be popular and profitable.  Whether or not its either of those is up for discussion, well maybe not yet, but you acting like they are morons to even try seems a bit naive.  Bad game does badly though, we can all agree on that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 02, 2013, 03:10:25 PM
Let's say as an art fan, I think it would be a good idea to combine Botticelli's Venus and the Mona Lisa. So, I cut them both in half and staple them together and hand them to you, and say "look at what I did!" Only I neglected to tape over the staple, so it stabs you in the hand, and as you bleed on the canvases, you notice that the part I cut out of the Mona Lisa was the smile and the part I cut out of Venus was Venus. You'd think I hadn't executed my idea very well, right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on December 02, 2013, 04:11:21 PM
If someone made a mod for Skyrim that spawned hundreds of NPCs that ran around killing everything, and looting all of the chests, then you'd have a fair approximation of life in an MMO version of an Elder Scrolls game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 02, 2013, 05:06:11 PM
Let's say as an art fan, I think it would be a good idea to combine Botticelli's Venus and the Mona Lisa. So, I cut them both in half and staple them together and hand them to you, and say "look at what I did!" Only I neglected to tape over the staple, so it stabs you in the hand, and as you bleed on the canvases, you notice that the part I cut out of the Mona Lisa was the smile and the part I cut out of Venus was Venus. You'd think I hadn't executed my idea very well, right?

I'll simplify it even more.  If you shit in a bag and people say it smells good, the bag is going to sell.  Who cares why, how or what, you are going to make some money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on December 02, 2013, 05:24:48 PM
Is it really that big a reach they'd make Elder Scrolls into an MMO?  And lets be fair, if its either a good Elder Scrolls game or a good MMO, it will be popular and profitable.  Whether or not its either of those is up for discussion, well maybe not yet, but you acting like they are morons to even try seems a bit naive.  Bad game does badly though, we can all agree on that.
SWTOR was a pretty good KOTOR3, but a shitty MMO, and certainly wasn't profitable as a sub-based game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 02, 2013, 06:46:26 PM
Is it really that big a reach they'd make Elder Scrolls into an MMO?  And lets be fair, if its either a good Elder Scrolls game or a good MMO, it will be popular and profitable.  Whether or not its either of those is up for discussion, well maybe not yet, but you acting like they are morons to even try seems a bit naive.  Bad game does badly though, we can all agree on that.
SWTOR was a pretty good KOTOR3, but a shitty MMO, and certainly wasn't profitable as a sub-based game.

I'm pretty sure both of your statements are conjecture.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on December 02, 2013, 11:20:27 PM
And yet, completely accurate.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on December 02, 2013, 11:38:39 PM
In the search for more money it's not a dumb thing to try and maybe to some people the idea of Elder Scrolls as an MMO sounded pretty neat, but it felt very odd to me is all. MMOifying it is inherently limiting compared to anything Elder Scrolls games offer. I don't know if it's going to be different enough from other MMOs to warrant a good audience for it, especially with the subscription model which seems to be almost taboo now.

It's funny though, because while I type all this, I am pretty sure I am one of the weird ones who will end up buying and playing it, because I like the universe it's set in and will be able to enjoy it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 03, 2013, 08:59:15 AM
It is dumb when you had the perfectly valid option of simply making a new Elder Scrolls game with coop instead and printed money hats.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on December 03, 2013, 09:36:47 AM
I don't think Bethesda had an aneurism when they decided to make an Elder Scrolls MMO; they just started it back when everyone was still -completely- retarded and still chasing the WoW dragon and they never bothered to look up from their desks to check the market until they had invested so much they felt pot committed to finish.

I think an Elder Scrolls MMO could work and be good/profitable; it's not a terrible idea, but the challenge to deliver it makes it a pretty risky proposition. I genuinely thought a Star Wars MMO set in the KOTOR timeline was a cool and completely workable idea; Star Wars without the weight of the original trilogy crushing it, and it's a perfectly big expandable world you can keep populating with cool new and old lore stuff. Pulling it off however? Yeah, we saw the result.

I was invited to the previous beta weekends (didn't do this last one) so I can't really say much more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 03, 2013, 09:56:24 AM
This MMO would have been successful had it released 5 years ago.  Now... chasing the sub market requires a pretty spectacular delivery.  Watching SWTOR fail should serve as a reminder that producing a sub-based MMO is a long shot at best. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 03, 2013, 10:10:02 AM
Who is to say that planning for subs to fail isn't the point?  You release with subs, raking in box and collector edition sales and a few 6 and 12 (and lifetime?) subs. In 6 months or a year- oopsie!  Time to go f2p.  Can we be absolutely sure that the spreadsheet guys haven't determined that is optimal from a revenue perspective?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 03, 2013, 10:17:01 AM
I honestly believe this game could have a moderate success without the monthly sub. But then again, when I say "moderate success" I am referring to about 500k - 800k players. Up to 1M. Problem is, that doesn't necessarily mean "success" to them since we don't know how much it cost them to produce it. Again, those figures are directly out of my ass, but I think they would be a fair possibility if this went the GW2 model. Monthly sub? I really don't think so.

EDIT: And yes, what Triforcer said. I am pretty sure they have the f2p plan ready for post-launch. Initial subbing is just for some extra cash while waiting for the f2p relaunch, with more patches, more content, more balancing, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 03, 2013, 10:52:10 AM
I agree, the best case scenario is to scrap the project before they dump another year of development costs, salaries, and fees into a project that will do nothing but damage the brand. I seriously doubt that the game will recoup enough in 2013 to make up for the interval costs associated with the interim.

I stand by this opinion from 18 months ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 03, 2013, 12:21:44 PM
This MMO would have been successful had it released 5 years ago.  Now... chasing the sub market requires a pretty spectacular delivery.  Watching SWTOR fail should serve as a reminder that producing a sub-based MMO is a long shot at best. 

SWTOR is free to play and still terrible, subscription had nothing to do with it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 03, 2013, 12:25:26 PM
SWTOR is free to play and still terrible, subscription had nothing to do with it.

I know you are aware of the number of boxes SWTOR sold at release, so I will assume you're just trolling.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 03, 2013, 01:48:02 PM
Character Progression video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtPIon_SKJo)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 03, 2013, 02:02:22 PM
So I guess since it's in the video, I can talk about one of the things I really hate: the off-to-the-side 3rd person view. It's motion-sickness inducing because of how it draws my eyes off to the side all the time, and it kind of sucks that the alternative is 1st person where you can't see what your own character looks like ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 03, 2013, 02:10:34 PM
Yep, it's horrible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on December 03, 2013, 02:18:36 PM
I've only played Skyrim. What I see as the biggest problem of an ES game is the world is dull like watching paint dry dull. The landscape is dull and monotonous. Even the lizard people look to me the same as any of the other human races. It's just boring. Skyrim's a great game because you can do all this interesting stuff, everything has something you can interact with, or whatever. But the word itself is to me everyone's complaints about EQ2 multiplied by a hundred. I haven't played ESO, but this video looks like more of the same.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on December 03, 2013, 02:19:33 PM
So I guess since it's in the video, I can talk about one of the things I really hate: the off-to-the-side 3rd person view. It's motion-sickness inducing because of how it draws my eyes off to the side all the time, and it kind of sucks that the alternative is 1st person where you can't see what your own character looks like ever.

Yes, I hate it. I was constantly missing my targets because a lifetime of third person games (who the fuck plays TES games in third consistently?) has taught me that I face forwards.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 03, 2013, 02:36:22 PM
The landscape is dull and monotonous.

Huh. I thought the landscape in Skyrim was gorgeous.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on December 03, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
The landscape is dull and monotonous.

Huh. I thought the landscape in Skyrim was gorgeous.

I think we had the same discussion over in the Skyrim thread recently. I thought it was great too. I think everything in TESO looks dull and boring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on December 03, 2013, 03:40:50 PM
See, I figured I'd end up playing it like all the other ES games, primarily in first person and switching to third very sparingly, but it ended up the exact opposite for me. Maybe because this time around, first person was an afterthought. Or maybe because it's an MMO. Or because it felt Witcher like. Shrug, can't really talk more about it I guess.

EDIT: The UI improvements in the video for the skills and character info are a step in the right direction.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on December 03, 2013, 04:53:11 PM
SWTOR is free to play and still terrible, subscription had nothing to do with it.

I know you are aware of the number of boxes SWTOR sold at release, so I will assume you're just trolling.

Are you seriously so stupid that you think that's a valid argument? The game is shit. Everyone can go play it tonight and its obviously shit. The voice acting is pretty cool. Everything else is just awful and some of the major features might be worst AAA MMO of all time level bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 03, 2013, 04:56:10 PM
Remind me which MMOs you actually liked, Hoax?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 03, 2013, 05:23:26 PM
Personally I've played just about every modern MMO to varying degrees and both Rift and GW2 were a million times better than SWTOR.  It got box sales because of the IP and the game company, it couldn't retain it's box sales past what, the first two months?  That is the opposite of doing well. 

I honestly don't give a shit about SWTOR anymore but to claim that game is somehow an indicator of anything is ridiculous. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 03, 2013, 05:31:06 PM
Rift and SWTOR will both be looked upon fondly compared to this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on December 03, 2013, 05:45:40 PM
Remind me which MMOs you actually liked, Hoax?

I think he liked that submarine game that no one ever heard of.

The SWTOR hate is interesting.  It's probably the only MMO that I'd actually pay for currently. It improved greatly since launch.  Rift's too boring and tiered.  WoW's just too old.  TSW's just too quirky to jump back to (it's free anyhow).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on December 03, 2013, 06:20:45 PM
I don't get the SWTOR hate either.  It's a thoroughly mediocre MMO but not a bad one.  Just bland like Rift.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 03, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
Yes, but TOR promised to be so much more, and failed to deliver.

Rift never promised to be more than a competent WoW clone, and that is exactly what we got. No more, no less.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 03, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
And then we got a freaking confusing cash shop in Rift before I bailed out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on December 04, 2013, 02:09:25 AM
Confusing how? I've never played Rift, so I'm curious.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 04, 2013, 02:16:55 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/EPZD7cP.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on December 04, 2013, 04:36:36 AM
On the Rift cash shop, I had the same reaction at first. They combined the cash shop with merchants and it made it more difficult to use either. The first time you go to sell your grey stuff and they're asking you to buy junk from the cash shop it's pretty confusing. Once you "get it" there's no problem though. It's not even an "aggressive cash shop promotion" thing as much as just "why is this stuff on my NPC merchant? and where is the stuff he sells?"

For me, SWTOR died when I realized the extent of how little the voiceovers and my choices mattered. That was the only thing it had going for it, so when that went, it was nothing.

On Skyrim/ESO art, it's not that it doesn't look good I guess as much as it looks dreary and repetitive. It's a little too game of thrones for my taste.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on December 04, 2013, 04:40:43 AM
Confusing how? I've never played Rift, so I'm curious.
Rift's cash shop interface is integrated into every single NPC shop window now, and they have all these various loyalty reward things and bonuses which while being nice clog the interface up into a gigantic mess.

I thought SWTOR was pretty okay until they basically fired everyone and all the new content after the Rhakghoul stuff wasn't anywhere near as good as the original stuff and I realized the story/choice stuff was never going to heavily factor into future 5-mans. The very first flashpoint is literally the only one where the story integration stuff is prevalent, integrated into the flashpoint well, and interesting.

The Eternity Vault was basically the graphics department and raid designers blowing their load for the entire game forever. Everything else after is boring and doesn't look like anything you'd see in Star Wars.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 04, 2013, 07:13:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU07krDtruw&feature=youtu.be

Best part of the game actually.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on December 04, 2013, 07:49:19 AM
Hmmm.  Some of that looks kinda cool.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 04, 2013, 08:07:09 AM
It actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 04, 2013, 08:14:41 AM
Hmmm.  Some of that looks kinda cool.

In theory, yes.  In practice, I doubt it.  The MMO community is so hell bent on min maxxing that they will quickly determine the most potent ways to build a character and will then use this information to punish anyone that doesn't do the same. 

This stuff is great in single player or coop games, but lousy in MMO's unless the Dev team spends the time and energy to test and balance builds.  I'm not holding my breath on that happening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on December 04, 2013, 08:18:23 AM
The end quote from the dev - "we cannot wait to see what the players come up with" - is missing the ending: "so we can nerf the shit out of it."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 04, 2013, 10:18:56 AM
Isn't that sort of thing what we've supposedly wanted since UO? If nothing else, watching the tank mages dual wielding garden rakes dominate will be entertaining.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on December 04, 2013, 10:22:15 AM
It is only fun when you can kill newbie players, though. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 04, 2013, 10:25:00 AM
This system is nothing more than the illusion of choice.  Sure, you can play any skill set you like... so long as you don't mind be less than optimal.  Every MMO that has has skills has demonstrated this.  Look at the GW2 forums for example.  Each class has all of these wonderful weapon and skill choices and the game still devolves into which builds are optimized for certain tasks.  GW2 couldn't balance their skill builds and I have far more faith in their development team than I do in ESO.

Then you have to consider that ESO thinks it's going to have good PvP.  I just don't see how they could possibly make this work. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 04, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
The fact that it is a pvp game actually means that something like trading away damage or mana  to put on heavy armor actually does make sense for a mage or healer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on December 04, 2013, 01:01:26 PM
PVP always comes down to the biggest nova burst.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 04, 2013, 01:56:51 PM
This system is nothing more than the illusion of choice.  Sure, you can play any skill set you like... so long as you don't mind be less than optimal.  Every MMO that has has skills has demonstrated this.  Look at the GW2 forums for example.  Each class has all of these wonderful weapon and skill choices and the game still devolves into which builds are optimized for certain tasks.  GW2 couldn't balance their skill builds and I have far more faith in their development team than I do in ESO.

Then you have to consider that ESO thinks it's going to have good PvP.  I just don't see how they could possibly make this work.  

That's all we want though isn't it?  Illusions?  We want our MMOS to seem immense and grand, but comfy and social.  We want tons of people, as long as they aren't trolls, or gold sellers, or douchebags, or elitists.  We want access to game changing decisions, as long as they aren't someone else's game changing decisions.  That's what designers have become, and we basically say, create whatever you want, but make sure it lives up to our illusions.  The players are as much to blame as the idiots with the money for the state of the Union.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 04, 2013, 02:17:14 PM
Personally, I'd love a good co-op experience, but all the MMO's that try it keep getting wrecked by the PVP crowd. STO seems to have kept the balance on Co-op play, even though the PVP crowd keep crying their eyes out all over the forums. I think that's their power really, they are really loud and vocal and shout down everyone else as they see it as forum PVP.

In STO's case they have looked at how many people in game actually PVP so they basically ignore them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on December 04, 2013, 11:40:21 PM
Remind me which MMOs you actually liked, Hoax?

In hindsight I appreciated EQ1 for the fact that mob spawns were less obviously there just for you to kill them. Overall the old zone design was more organic and "real" then what we get these days. I loved AC1 for being fairly twitchy as well.

I enjoyed vanilla WoW to a point, the second they added honor in I could tell they were moving away from what I liked, all instancing and sport pvp crap after that was nothing I would pay for. I thought SB was fucking amazing in terms of the open world to build on and character creation, it was a lot of fun. I still think Eve is incredible but sadly I'm just not that cerebral of a player so much of it is wasted on me. I really enjoyed AO especially the idea that there was a storyline that both interacted and happened beyond the playerbase sadly it was really buggy at launch which drove away most of my friends. I did some time in Tera and quite enjoyed running the dungeons but realistically it isn't a MMO to me, the playerbase and virtual space really didn't mean anything to me at the end of my 3 months. Beyond those I've had fun in lots of niche and strange multiplayer titles.

I also thought Matrix could have been cool if the netcode wasn't shit and the game looked a little better, the idea of the combat system intrigued me.

I only play MMO's to experience a virtual world. Otherwise I'll stick to 2-8 player co-op single player games with friends. The best MMO that played as a co-op game I can think of is STO and even there I would have traded superior gameplay for losing big hordes of ships floating around certain places and capital cities full of randoms in a heartbeat. I'd much rather play Starfleet Command in some kind of campaign mode with friends than STO though STO was good enough.

SWTOR is the absolute worst. Its zone design is as bad as the worst korean grindfest. Like maybe its zones have a little more thought and life than Scarlet Blade but not by a whole lot. Meanwhile SWTOR is trying to sell me on this "you are the hero" voice acted story. But nothing in instanced so I'm literally walking along behind someone doing the same quest and being followed by someone doing the same quest. Its a pathetic joke how bad that game is. The combat is refried WoW but much more clunky and jank aka shit. Nothing about SWTOR beyond some of the voice acted personalities is above average for the medium. But yeah I must be broken for not thinking that TESO or SWTOR have a redeeming feature between them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on December 05, 2013, 07:16:57 AM
Remind me which MMOs you actually liked, Hoax?

In hindsight I appreciated EQ1 for the fact that mob spawns were less obviously there just for you to kill them.

That really was the captivating magic of the world, even if the players created certain areas where it was just grind spawns.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on December 05, 2013, 07:44:16 AM
I don't get the SWTOR hate either.  It's a thoroughly mediocre MMO but not a bad one.  Just bland like Rift.   

I think, ultimately, the issue is that a mediocre MMO *is* a shit MMO. Mediocrity in fundamentals like a combat system or overworld traversal or pvp compound their frustrations and cannot be forgiven in a way they would be forgiven in a relatively quick singleplayer game experience. Instead, as the hours pile on in an MMO, mediocrity eventually abrades your patience too much to continue. It burns you out and you quit because you now hate the game and it tested your patience and was found lacking.

And with SWTOR, a lot of the hate has to do with wasted potential and squander. Or, to put it on a basic front: SWTOR represented a really potentially huge pinnacle of potential that people don't like to see squandered. Bioware spending a $lots on a Star Wars MMO. Plenty of force user classes. Lightsabers, blasters, jedi, sith, bounty hunters, smugglers, the whole nine yards.

I was certainly excited as all fuck about it, YEAH WOO STAR WARS, and I didn't make it too long. Too many grindingly poor fundamentals. Too much in the way of frustration oblivating potential immersion. Futzy spongy combat, horrific pvp where I am desperately swapping hotkeys to be able to throw huttballs because as a Jedi Blend-Tec I have 1.66 x 1027 skills, really poorly designed planets that you begin to dread having to travel through and will never again visit if you have any choice in the matter. It eventually quashed my interest and I mustered out, as usual.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 05, 2013, 07:54:53 AM
SWTOR had the best leveling experience of any MMO i've played so far, and about the worst end game.  Going through the story at least once is something i would not hesitate to recommend to anyone, usually i find leveling to be a chore i have to do before i get to the real meat of the game.  But once that ran out there was absolutely nothing else worth a damn in the entire game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on December 05, 2013, 07:57:49 AM
I may try it again someday when you can level conspicuously quickly, travel options are much more readily and quickly available, etc.

I effectively want it to be distilled into a KOTOR I can get through in two or three weeks per class.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 05, 2013, 08:37:23 AM
I completely agree. If TOR increased XP gains by 200%, player damage and health by 50%, and converted all heroic areas to be soloable I would play again right now, and EA would get some money out of me for it. I just want KOTOR3.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on December 05, 2013, 08:55:31 AM
Quote from: Samprimary
I was certainly excited as all fuck about it, YEAH WOO STAR WARS, and I didn't make it too long. Too many grindingly poor fundamentals. Too much in the way of frustration oblivating potential immersion. Futzy spongy combat, horrific pvp where I am desperately swapping hotkeys to be able to throw huttballs because as a Jedi Blend-Tec I have 1.66 x 1027 skills, really poorly designed planets that you begin to dread having to travel through and will never again visit if you have any choice in the matter. It eventually quashed my interest and I mustered out, as usual.

Amen. God, the fucking artificial cockblocks to shepherd everyone through the same goddamned paths on each bland theme park planet were just infuriating. FUCK travel in that game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 05, 2013, 08:59:59 AM
Amen. God, the fucking artificial cockblocks to shepherd everyone through the same goddamned paths on each bland theme park planet were just infuriating. FUCK travel in that game.

You do know that there is a perk that allows you to use your zone port more often, right?  Another perk will allow you to port back to fleet more often as well. 

I personally didn't find travel to be an issue once I bought the zone port perk.  The leveling in SWTOR is as fast as I've seen in any MMO. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on December 05, 2013, 10:04:07 AM
The travel got a lot better.  There are some artifacts that still slow it down some. I believe the orbital stations still exist for going down to certain planets, but are not there going up.  Travel was not a huge gripe my last time playing (unsubbed currently because I'm still playing the shit out of GW2).

I wish they'd finally just kill off the group only leveling content.  I can hope for the death of leveling instances as well, but that's a stretch.  I can't really any one pining for the "OK, everything else was solo, but go get 3 friends to do this one quest!". 



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on December 05, 2013, 11:48:58 AM
Most of the time I don't even know what game we're talking about in here anymore.  For some reason, I can't follow this thread at all. 

I still want to play this because I'm sure I'll be bored with everything by that time.  I no longer believe there will ever be a totally awesome game that I can play forever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on December 05, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
In a way, I'd be happy with something that gave an explorer-type at least as much satisfaction as AC 1 did: big world, lots of excess stuff that doesn't really matter for levelling, some Easter Eggs if you go exploring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 05, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
Amen. God, the fucking artificial cockblocks to shepherd everyone through the same goddamned paths on each bland theme park planet were just infuriating. FUCK travel in that game.

You do know that there is a perk that allows you to use your zone port more often, right?  Another perk will allow you to port back to fleet more often as well. 

I personally didn't find travel to be an issue once I bought the zone port perk.  The leveling in SWTOR is as fast as I've seen in any MMO. 

Hell, if you have a security key, you can buy cheap-ish consumables to port back to the fleet that only have an hour cooldown. The zone port perk is pretty great, I only just recently bought it, and am now wondering wtf I was thinking not buying it earlier. :P

If you want to just blast through a story, all you need to do is play when they've got a double XP weekend going.


As for the group quests, I just don't see them as a big deal. They never pull the shit LotRO did, where the last step of a quest chain is suddenly a group quest or anything. They aren't factored into your XP curve (in that you won't fall behind it if you skip them). The Heroic 4s are super duper ignorable (and once you have enough presence, a lot of them can be done in a duo  :why_so_serious: ). My only request would be that they mark those somehow so you don't have to sit through a conversation before you find out it's a quest you don't want to do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on December 05, 2013, 05:57:34 PM
My only request would be that they mark those somehow so you don't have to sit through a conversation before you find out it's a quest you don't want to do.

God, yes. A different symbol over the NPC or something.

They do leave me wondering if the companion affection change from those conversations is lost when I abandon the quests, or if you just can't get affection on the second or subsequent runs through. So far I've been too lazy or inattentive to check.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on December 05, 2013, 07:36:53 PM
You don't get the companion affection until you turn in the quest, its part of the quest reward along side the XP and money and etc.

If a quest is repeatable you'll get the affection every time you do it, based on your dialogues choices each time you do the quest. There are people that just re-run the first dungeon over and over just for the Rep/Alignment gain.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ezrast on December 05, 2013, 09:37:32 PM
I don't get the SWTOR hate either.  It's a thoroughly mediocre MMO but not a bad one.  Just bland like Rift.   

I think, ultimately, the issue is that a mediocre MMO *is* a shit MMO. Mediocrity in fundamentals like a combat system or overworld traversal or pvp compound their frustrations and cannot be forgiven in a way they would be forgiven in a relatively quick singleplayer game experience. Instead, as the hours pile on in an MMO, mediocrity eventually abrades your patience too much to continue. It burns you out and you quit because you now hate the game and it tested your patience and was found lacking.

And with SWTOR, a lot of the hate has to do with wasted potential and squander. Or, to put it on a basic front: SWTOR represented a really potentially huge pinnacle of potential that people don't like to see squandered. Bioware spending a $lots on a Star Wars MMO. Plenty of force user classes. Lightsabers, blasters, jedi, sith, bounty hunters, smugglers, the whole nine yards.

I was certainly excited as all fuck about it, YEAH WOO STAR WARS, and I didn't make it too long. Too many grindingly poor fundamentals. Too much in the way of frustration oblivating potential immersion. Futzy spongy combat, horrific pvp where I am desperately swapping hotkeys to be able to throw huttballs because as a Jedi Blend-Tec I have 1.66 x 1027 skills, really poorly designed planets that you begin to dread having to travel through and will never again visit if you have any choice in the matter. It eventually quashed my interest and I mustered out, as usual.
SWTOR was a game in the most played-out genre using the most overrated IP by the most washed-up developer under the most oppressive publisher. It never had potential. But I agree that if it had flown in under the radar from a spunky startup, it would be treated as basically the same as RIFT: generally decent, but still nobody plays it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 06, 2013, 12:38:37 AM
On top of being a mediocre MMORPG (which I played too much just because of friends and because it turned out to have a pretty nice level 50 PvP arena combat) especially once the novelty of the storytelling ran out, what didn't help it with me is that it always felt like a bad imitation of Star Wars, like the new movies. I am one of those snobs who don't consider Star Wars anything that isn't The Trilogy, so while I could have appreciated SWTOR more as an semi-original IP sci-fi diku, it ended up feeling like a world that was just plagiarizing the only real Star Wars universe without having its charisma.

I am surprised how many people who consider the Episodes 1 - 3 movies utter shit then happen to be OK with games that take place in the bullshitty timelines.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 06, 2013, 01:48:52 AM
Most of the time I don't even know what game we're talking about in here anymore.  For some reason, I can't follow this thread at all. 

I still want to play this because I'm sure I'll be bored with everything by that time.  I no longer believe there will ever be a totally awesome game that I can play forever.

With that kind of thinking I dunno how you justify spending the box price on 1 MMO when you can buy 3-4 games from steam on sale for less.
I enjoyed MMO back then, now I realized I can't enjoy doing the same moves over and over for weeks just to get 2% power increment and repeated raid boss with 4 strangers just equip cool things. The first thing MMO can do to attract me back is no subs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 06, 2013, 05:22:10 AM
I am surprised how many people who consider the Episodes 1 - 3 movies utter shit then happen to be OK with games that take place in the bullshitty timelines.
Err, its set in the early republic timeline, thousands of years before the prequils, which was created by Bioware for Knights of the Old Republic, a game most everybody I know loved.  The setting and story were great.

People didn't like the prequils because they were in fact bad movies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 06, 2013, 06:13:05 AM
I know it's not the same timeline of the shitty movies, I was just saying I don't give a single fuck about Star Wars outside of the Trilogy. Take Han Solo, Chewbacca, R2-D2, C-3PO, Darth Vader, the Stormtroopers, the Tie Fighters out of the equation and you are left with a very bad sci-fi setting. I am surprised people care (well those who care, I know a lot who don't).

EDIT to add: As bad as the Mass Effect universe. My point is that good games stand on their legs, as does good narrative, but when a game like SWTOR was announced, I saw no connection between it and "Star Wars". My personal expectations were towards KOTOR, as you pointed out, not to Star Wars cause neither of them was a Star Wars game anyway. SWG was, and that's a different story, and different problems.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on December 06, 2013, 06:21:57 AM
At this point SWTOR is what it is.  It certainly didn't live up to its potential, and judging by the expansions, it never will.  But I approach it and play it here and there, wringing a little enjoyment for awhile.  Sometimes you just gotta swing a lightsaber.

Slow XP: You can buy xp boost tokens and there are some as quest rewards.  Double weekends.
Group Quests:  You can easily do Heroic 4 on Coruscant and Dromond Kas.  After that, yes problematic.  But you can solo Heroic 2's and are a fun challenge.
Travel:  Like others said; fleet passes, shuttles on planets directly to the fleet etc.  Get a sweet landspeeder and admire yourself zipping along the desert.
Non-Star Warsy?  What could Bioware do?  If you set the game in either of the movie eras, you can create a lot of problems.  Empire era won't have any Jedi.  Republic era is disliked, so Bioware went back to their KOTOR timeline.  

What bothers me still is there isn't ENOUGH story.  It sucked to see my companions go offscreen and 'complete' their stories after they've bitched about it for twenty levels.  I understand they had to cut stuff for release, but it's been what two years now?  I have other problems with the game, but I'm resigned that the 1-50 pve path won't be worked on.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 06, 2013, 08:21:22 AM
Miracle patch any day now  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on December 06, 2013, 09:24:46 AM
Most of the time I don't even know what game we're talking about in here anymore.  For some reason, I can't follow this thread at all. 

I still want to play this because I'm sure I'll be bored with everything by that time.  I no longer believe there will ever be a totally awesome game that I can play forever.

With that kind of thinking I dunno how you justify spending the box price on 1 MMO when you can buy 3-4 games from steam on sale for less.
I enjoyed MMO back then, now I realized I can't enjoy doing the same moves over and over for weeks just to get 2% power increment and repeated raid boss with 4 strangers just equip cool things. The first thing MMO can do to attract me back is no subs.

I was kind of talking just about MMOs.  I actually prefer single player rpgs and single/multi player shooters these days and I don't get bored as quickly with them as I do with MMOs for the most part, especially if it's a console game.  Most games I buy for the PC, I buy through Steam now.  I find that subbing to xbox live is a good deal because they give me two freebies a month.  I nearly always have something to play and a big back log of stuff downloaded that I haven't got to yet.  I like to have an MMORPG around if it's something my sister or a friend might be playing.  And just because I want to play something doesn't mean I will, or that I won't wait until it's cheaper.  At least not anymore.  That's why the new f2p models work for me to a large degree.  Even if I sub for a month or so with those, I think it's a good value.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 06, 2013, 11:52:47 AM
I picked up the enhanced edition of Baldur's Gate 1 from steam for 4.99 a couple days ago and I just can't believe how well it holds up as an amazing rpg.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on December 06, 2013, 01:24:36 PM
SWTOR had the best leveling experience of any MMO i've played so far, and about the worst end game.  Going through the story at least once is something i would not hesitate to recommend to anyone, usually i find leveling to be a chore i have to do before i get to the real meat of the game.  But once that ran out there was absolutely nothing else worth a damn in the entire game.

Which story? The individual class stories were the best part of the game. Unfortunately all of this grindy MMO crap gameplay kept getting in the way of the interesting bits. What's the difference between Alderaan and Hutta? In one you do grindquests in temprate forests, in the other you do grindquests in a swamp.

meh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 06, 2013, 02:26:21 PM
Jail planet almost made me quit the game. I should have right then, but I stuck it out for a month of dungeons and bad tanking mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 06, 2013, 02:52:33 PM
Jail planet almost made me quit the game. I should have right then, but I stuck it out for a month of dungeons and bad tanking mechanics.

You don't like the tanking mechanics? Interesting, because I think we both played warrior tanks in WoW and the way the JK plays for me is like a better version of the Wrath-era warrior. A few flashpoints WERE buggy for quite a while at the start though, so I can see that being part of the issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 06, 2013, 04:09:40 PM
On top of being a mediocre MMORPG (which I played too much just because of friends and because it turned out to have a pretty nice level 50 PvP arena combat) especially once the novelty of the storytelling ran out, what didn't help it with me is that it always felt like a bad imitation of Star Wars, like the new movies. I am one of those snobs who don't consider Star Wars anything that isn't The Trilogy, so while I could have appreciated SWTOR more as an semi-original IP sci-fi diku, it ended up feeling like a world that was just plagiarizing the only real Star Wars universe without having its charisma.

I am surprised how many people who consider the Episodes 1 - 3 movies utter shit then happen to be OK with games that take place in the bullshitty timelines.

Because KotOR, KotOR 2 and SWTOR's stories are at least interesting. Episodes 1-3 were an unfocused mess that failed at even the most basic storytelling. It sounds like your fondness for Star Wars comes mostly from the characters over the setting. That's fine, that's the main appeal for me too. But the Old Republic games also have characters I like and/or give a shit about. The Prequels barely had characters at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 06, 2013, 08:36:27 PM
Jail planet almost made me quit the game. I should have right then, but I stuck it out for a month of dungeons and bad tanking mechanics.

You don't like the tanking mechanics? Interesting, because I think we both played warrior tanks in WoW and the way the JK plays for me is like a better version of the Wrath-era warrior. A few flashpoints WERE buggy for quite a while at the start though, so I can see that being part of the issue.

That and I didn't really understand that taunt spamming was needed. Or something like that. I remember the JK getting retooled quite a bit after I quit because it wasn't working right at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on December 07, 2013, 03:20:14 AM
On top of being a mediocre MMORPG (which I played too much just because of friends and because it turned out to have a pretty nice level 50 PvP arena combat) especially once the novelty of the storytelling ran out, what didn't help it with me is that it always felt like a bad imitation of Star Wars, like the new movies. I am one of those snobs who don't consider Star Wars anything that isn't The Trilogy, so while I could have appreciated SWTOR more as an semi-original IP sci-fi diku, it ended up feeling like a world that was just plagiarizing the only real Star Wars universe without having its charisma.

I am surprised how many people who consider the Episodes 1 - 3 movies utter shit then happen to be OK with games that take place in the bullshitty timelines.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: STO is better at being a Star Trek game than SWTOR is at being a Star Wars game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on December 07, 2013, 03:31:24 AM
I don't know how to tell you this but you're talking about video games

MMOs are the pet rocks of the 00s: an inexplicably popular tapping of some really weird part of the Western zeitgeist. WoW was an aberration, coming at the exact right time with the exact right features. They're a spent force and anyone breaking ground on one today is fucking crazy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 07, 2013, 07:01:36 AM
And Blizzard made it, which boosted everyone's ratings on it by 40%. I tried it for 2 weeks and didn't see what all the fuss was about. It was just big muscly men, even elves and undead, running about harvesting bear ears to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 07, 2013, 07:12:11 AM
And Blizzard made it, which boosted everyone's ratings on it by 40%. I tried it for 2 weeks and didn't see what all the fuss was about. It was just big muscly men, even elves and undead, running about harvesting bear ears to me.
I really hate it when people attribute WoW's success to having the Blizzard name attached to it.  Up until that point, I'd played just about every single MMO that had been created.  And I loved it.  Blew all the competition out of the water.  Their innovation was removing the bullshit and just letting you have fun and do all sorts of shit without grindy cock blocks (Basically, they let you solo and quest your way up).  The graphics, artwork, lore, ect, also destroyed all competition for the time.  It made it a much more enjoyable experience than any other MMO created to that date, for me at least.  And THATS why it went on to get millions of subs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Velorath on December 07, 2013, 07:16:23 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again

I seem to recall that being a bit of a problem with you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 07, 2013, 08:49:14 AM
And Blizzard made it, which boosted everyone's ratings on it by 40%. I tried it for 2 weeks and didn't see what all the fuss was about. It was just big muscly men, even elves and undead, running about harvesting bear ears to me.
i
I really hate it when people attribute WoW's success to having the Blizzard name attached to it.  Up until that point, I'd played just about every single MMO that had been created.  And I loved it.  Blew all the competition out of the water.  Their innovation was removing the bullshit and just letting you have fun and do all sorts of shit without grindy cock blocks (Basically, they let you solo and quest your way up).  The graphics, artwork, lore, ect, also destroyed all competition for the time.  It made it a much more enjoyable experience than any other MMO created to that date, for me at least.  And THATS why it went on to get millions of subs.

This conversation is almost as old as F13 itself. Nobody's really saying Blizzard = automatic-success. But by then they were known to make fun games and they had the Battle.net audience. So that plus all the other factors (IP, budget, etc) drew people in, and the quality they produced retained them. This particular Blizzard was different from the other Blizzard(s) people were familiar with, but the output made that point moot.

I will argue you on the graphics, because they caught a lot of shot for that early on. Until people started playing and learned (even if they didn't realize it) that self-consistency of art style was far more important than "good graphics" (which was EQ2s schtick when it launched a month prior).

MMOs are the pet rocks of the 00s: an inexplicably popular tapping of some really weird part of the Western zeitgeist. WoW was an aberration, coming at the exact right time with the exact right features. They're a spent force and anyone breaking ground on one today is fucking crazy.
Let's not get crazy. WoW was an outlier in the Western markets. But when you look globally, and account for the other kinds of MMO business models popularized in China and South Korea and the reach those games attained, WoW is one among many. Lineage was the one game that ever got thrown around in comparison to EQ1, AC1 and UO. But there are hundreds of MMOs over there that never made it here. The used to churn there faster than CoD did here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 07, 2013, 11:50:35 AM
This conversation is almost as old as F13 itself. Nobody's really saying Blizzard = automatic-success. But by then they were known to make fun games and they had the Battle.net audience. So that plus all the other factors (IP, budget, etc) drew people in, and the quality they produced retained them. This particular Blizzard was different from the other Blizzard(s) people were familiar with, but the output made that point moot.

I will argue you on the graphics, because they caught a lot of shot for that early on. Until people started playing and learned (even if they didn't realize it) that self-consistency of art style was far more important than "good graphics" (which was EQ2s schtick when it launched a month prior).
But that is exactly what he, and many others over the years, said.  That people gave it a pass because of the blizzard logo, even though it was a shitty game, blah blah.  Of course the name brought more people in.  Just as the name Bioware and Starwars brought lots of people to TOR.  And people to SWG and EQ2 (being the sequel to the most successful MMO ever at the time).  They all failed because nobody liked the actual game they offered, but did enjoy what blizzard offered.

For the graphics, I never understood any of the complaints.  IMO, the game looked LIGHT YEARS ahead of anything that came before it, and came after it for a good long while.  I know technically polygons or whatever were lower, but I didn't see that.  I just saw amazing looking environments, for the time.  Thats another strength, actually.  WoW was the first game that I was really in awe of walking around (beyond my initial EQ 'holy shit an actual 3D world look at this' days).  I actually spent hours and hours of the game just walking around and exploring, seeing the cool looking areas and trying to find historical locations from previous warcraft games.  Never leveling up or anything, just exploring.  Nothing has managed to have that big of a leap forward for me since.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 07, 2013, 12:04:47 PM
Thats another strength, actually.  WoW was the first game that I was really in awe of walking around (beyond my initial EQ 'holy shit an actual 3D world look at this' days).  I actually spent hours and hours of the game just walking around and exploring, seeing the cool looking areas and trying to find historical locations from previous warcraft games.  Never leveling up or anything, just exploring.  Nothing has managed to have that big of a leap forward for me since.

I was this way with WoW at first too, but a big part of it is certainly actually having played the Warcraft games before it and knowing the lore to some degree.  I don't think it would have had quite the same effect without it.  I'm sure big huge castle X in every MMO has some sort of interesting backstory, but I don't know it, and there is no reason for my to go out of my way to find out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 07, 2013, 12:24:18 PM
That's certainly true enough, but I still found the environments in the world cool by themselves.  I loved exploring the forest in the Night Elves zones, finding the crazy monuments around the dwarf areas, following the rivers to see where they went and find what was at the top of water falls, what was hidden below the waves in coastal areas, ect.  Hell, I loved the shit out of Stranglethorn for this reason and it had nothing to do with established lore, heh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 07, 2013, 12:31:21 PM
But that is exactly what he, and many others over the years, said.  That people gave it a pass because of the blizzard logo, even though it was a shitty game, blah blah.  Of course the name brought more people in.  Just as the name Bioware and Starwars brought lots of people to TOR.  And people to SWG and EQ2 (being the sequel to the most successful MMO ever at the time).  They all failed because nobody liked the actual game they offered, but did enjoy what blizzard offered.

I don't think we disagree.

"Warcraft" and "Star Wars" can attract attention, like any consumer-friendly brand with high awareness backed by strong marketing efforts.

But the experience has to hold up its end of the bargain. No amount of "but it's called Warcraft" is going to retain a player if the game play itself isn't fun. You'll still get those diehard hopefuls who will stick around hoping things get better. But either they actually like the game they publicly claim they don't, they're playing a game they don't like for reasons unrelated to the game play itself (trading, socializing, music, whatever), or they're delusion :-) Regardless, that's not a market you spend tens of millions of dollars on. They're only part of a market you end up with if you make bad design or development decisions.

So players gave WoW a look because it was "Warcraft" from "Blizzard". But they didn't stick around for years because of the name.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 07, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
So players gave WoW a look because it was "Warcraft" from "Blizzard". But they didn't stick around for years because of the name.

This. 

Players also gave LOTRO, WAR, and SWTOR a look in large numbers... not the same result.  Blizzard really captured a gaming audience with their level of polish.  It's pretty undeniable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 07, 2013, 02:19:03 PM
Polish AND removal of bullshit.  So many people have forgotten the bullshit that was MMO leveling and questing 10 years ago. 

Yeah we complain about WoW's methods now, but because it's become the standard and we always want the new and shiny.  (It also doesn't help that they've moved in to a much more direcrted experience than the vanilla and BC nodes you could jump around to.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 07, 2013, 02:57:00 PM
I did not give WoW a look because of Blizzard or Warcraft. In fact, the Warcraft thing had me NOT looking at it, because it was a setting I gave absolutely no fucks about. But a bunch of my guildies in DAoC were kinda excited about it, and I started hearing about the actual game part, and it sounded ... fun. So I did the stress test like every other nerd I know, and even though it was laggy as shit and everything ... it WAS fun.

In all honestly, I think one of the biggest things that helped it was the lack of NDA.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on December 07, 2013, 02:59:28 PM
WoW's methods to me aren't the standard because the reality is, not a single studio has completely been able to re-produce what Blizz did.   Every design (even EQ2) has been ever-so-slightly different, which in the end becomes the studio's undoing.  Carbine has the best design so far imo, the caveat being they used a brand new IP.  Blizz had an already rich and successful IP to draw from.  The question "why am I here?" can easily be answered.

Though, like Sjofn, I really gave didnt give two fucks about the theme aside from having played a lot of Warcraft in my day.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 07, 2013, 03:03:18 PM
I think you mean "unlike Sjofn." I had no fucks available for that setting.

edit: There you go!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 07, 2013, 09:04:56 PM
In all honestly, I think one of the biggest things that helped it was the lack of NDA.

Good games don't need them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 07, 2013, 09:54:03 PM
WoW's methods to me aren't the standard because the reality is, not a single studio has completely been able to re-produce what Blizz did.   Every design (even EQ2) has been ever-so-slightly different,

Point of order: EQ2 released months prior to WoW, so there was no way they were stealing the changes that far in to their own development.  Retool existing systems to try and match?  Sure, but that's a different animal.

No MMO tried to steal a lot of what Blizz did for years, continuing to do old stupid shit. Mandatory groups, hunt for quests and content, shitty crafting, unintelligible, nonexistent or useless in-game maps, decrease of player:mob power ratio as you progressed.  All because they clung to the narrative of, "Blizzard is only successful because they have that huge b.net fan base."   You saw it EVERYWHERE among established Devs and those whose games crashed and burned in the 3-4 years after WoW's release.  (Hell, we're seeing it here in this thread STILL.  "WoW was only successful because of b.net."   :oh_i_see:)

But games did start making a lot of those features standard.  When's the last time you ground mobs or couldn't find shit on your map?  Blizzard didn't create every standard feature we expect these days but they laid a groundwork for many of them.  Which is what makes their current head-up-their-own-ass direction that much more frustrating.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on December 07, 2013, 11:43:27 PM
WoW's methods to me aren't the standard because the reality is, not a single studio has completely been able to re-produce what Blizz did.   Every design (even EQ2) has been ever-so-slightly different,

But games did start making a lot of those features standard. 

And yet they continued to crash and burn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 08, 2013, 02:13:09 AM

And yet they continued to crash and burn.

WoW does have something I can't think of in any other similar MMO - it's just pleasurable to be logged in and doing stuff most of the time.  I can't really explain it.  I think most people have been referring to this as "polish" but it isn't just that.  The game is very crisp, things "just work," etc.  I used to log into WoW when I was playing just to idle in a city even if I didn't really want to "play" because it was just nice to be there.  I think I had that feeling more in WoW than any other MMO before or after - even the ones I played for comparable amounts of time like EVE.

I haven't played WoW in about three years, but just typing this out actually makes me feel slightly compelled to resub just to run around Ironforge again.  I'm not going to, but there sure as hell isn't any other MMO that makes me feel that way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 08, 2013, 03:05:37 AM
WoW's methods to me aren't the standard because the reality is, not a single studio has completely been able to re-produce what Blizz did.   Every design (even EQ2) has been ever-so-slightly different,

Point of order: EQ2 released months 3 weeks prior to WoW

Fixed it for you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on December 08, 2013, 08:10:58 AM
WoW's methods to me aren't the standard because the reality is, not a single studio has completely been able to re-produce what Blizz did.   Every design (even EQ2) has been ever-so-slightly different,

Point of order: EQ2 released months 3 weeks prior to WoW

Fixed it for you.

Do you guys honestly think that release date (of which I obviously knew already) really makes any difference in my initial statement?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 08, 2013, 10:05:42 AM
WoW does have something I can't think of in any other similar MMO - it's just pleasurable to be logged in and doing stuff most of the time.  I can't really explain it.  I think most people have been referring to this as "polish" but it isn't just that.  The game is very crisp, things "just work," etc.  I used to log into WoW when I was playing just to idle in a city even if I didn't really want to "play" because it was just nice to be there.  I think I had that feeling more in WoW than any other MMO before or after - even the ones I played for comparable amounts of time like EVE.

I haven't played WoW in about three years, but just typing this out actually makes me feel slightly compelled to resub just to run around Ironforge again.  I'm not going to, but there sure as hell isn't any other MMO that makes me feel that way.

I know what you mean. Its the Blizzard effect. Things are just so and familiar and "its blizzard". Same as Diablo II. I played it for hours even though I recognized it wasn't actually that great a game all things considered. The story utterly sucked with the exception of Tyriel awesome, and the fighting was the same thing over and over; splattering tons of pointless no threat mobs that just got easier and easier to kill as they patched the game and power creep set in. Still loved playing my lightning Sorceress even if it was "walk into a room and everything in it instantly dropped dead," and it had decent loot generation.

Dunno what it is to be honest.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on December 08, 2013, 10:44:27 AM
This whole discussion perfectly summarizes why most self proclaimed game designers are absolutely terrible.  Making a good game is less about the tangible gameplay features themselves and is more about the synergy of everything put together.  Story, sounds, environment, pacing, direction, cohesiveness, socialness, etc...
 
These are all things that (even as someone who didn't enjoy it) WoW did right and the reasons no major MMO has really been able to copy it.  This is true even outside of the MMO space (why I have 40+ hours logged on BL2 *so far* but only played Hellgate for 10 at most, why Fury was a terrible failure, why everyone likes D2 much better than D3, etc...). 



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 08, 2013, 11:09:20 AM
This whole discussion perfectly summarizes why most self proclaimed game designers are absolutely terrible.  Making a good game is less about the tangible gameplay features themselves and is more about the synergy of everything put together.  Story, sounds, environment, pacing, direction, cohesiveness, socialness, etc...
Yep.

Tangle features are important, but they have to blend together into a whole, not feel like add-ons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2013, 12:08:26 PM
This whole discussion perfectly summarizes why most self proclaimed game designers are absolutely terrible.  Making a good game is less about the tangible gameplay features themselves and is more about the synergy of everything put together.  Story, sounds, environment, pacing, direction, cohesiveness, socialness, etc...
 
These are all things that (even as someone who didn't enjoy it) WoW did right and the reasons no major MMO has really been able to copy it.  This is true even outside of the MMO space (why I have 40+ hours logged on BL2 *so far* but only played Hellgate for 10 at most, why Fury was a terrible failure, why everyone likes D2 much better than D3, etc...). 



Yeah I had a whole post about this I was going to do this morning in response to Gambit, but decided "Fuck it."

It's been 10 years, people want to continue to believe it's just "LOL BLIZZARD FANS" and not a more quantitative and tangible design gestalt, let 'em.  The Parthenon was a building but not all buildings are The Parthenon and some people can't see the distinction.

GW2 has come closest (for me) since then, but so many have treated things like a checklist and wondered why the checklist didn't = success. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 08, 2013, 12:16:49 PM
Which comes back to polish.  Too many games save the cohesion for the first big patch.  They hold back on a well tuned UI or release a crappy chat system as a placeholder.  WoW truly felt next generation in comparison to Everquest, Diablo, DAOC and Ultima Online because it held your hand in a way they never had and directed you to the fun.  Gone were the days of trying to figure things out on your own, and people liked it.  But that formula only won that era.  You could repeat everything they did back then exactly and get zero back now. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2013, 12:37:19 PM
Because WoW was a clear step up from what had come before, we've had nothing but sideway steps mixed in with horrendous steps down since then.  You are not going to succeed like WoW unless your game is a clear step up, the only game that might even be attempting that at this point is EQN.  Putting your hopes on SOE is the first step to disappointment though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 08, 2013, 12:59:53 PM
Because WoW was a clear step up from what had come before

This is also quite important.  When it comes to games in which people are putting in 1000s of hours, it takes a hell of a lot to get you to decide to put that into a new one.  I realize we are in an age where playing an MMO for 2 months and being "done" is normal, but I'm not particularly interested in doing so - and it isn't really a long term plan for an MMO.  Anyway, the point is, I'm not going to abandon 1000 hours of play across X numbers of characters to go play a relatively similar quality game, even a bit better one.  It's got to be a clearly better choice.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on December 08, 2013, 03:35:42 PM
What is this thread about again ?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on December 08, 2013, 04:18:38 PM
What is this thread about again ?


Something more productive than talking about TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 08, 2013, 05:34:54 PM
What is this thread about again ?


Realizing that MMO is not advancing forward but continue to watch the Blizzard toilet, emulating it, fascinated by the brown material swirling before being sucked down into that bottomless hole.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 08, 2013, 07:35:38 PM
The "I can go back to the game where I have an established character and I've done with my grinding" is a pretty powerful draw it must be said, even for a game that's probably better than WOW. Why stick with this and put all the efforts into leveling and gearing up when you still have your kick ass character back in blizzardville.  That's one of the reasons I gave away my Eve Online character, as the whole thing of having a powerful character was always something in the back of my mind as a reason to go back to EVE even though I saw through all the bullshit in that game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 10, 2013, 05:14:02 AM
What is this thread about again ?


History repeating.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on December 10, 2013, 08:18:39 AM
What is this thread about again ?


History repeating.

You sang that in your best Shirley Bassey voice whilst driving around in your S-type, right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 10, 2013, 11:56:13 AM
The "I can go back to the game where I have an established character and I've done with my grinding" is a pretty powerful draw it must be said, even for a game that's probably better than WOW. Why stick with this and put all the efforts into leveling and gearing up when you still have your kick ass character back in blizzardville. 
Err, that gameplay is supposed to be fun. If you don't enjoy it you shouldn't feel compelled to play.

The obvious response is "the real game starts at max level" but does it, really? Did you have more fun leveling your first character or doing endgame stuff in WoW?

Personally, I feel the WoW leveling experience compares well against any great game from the past 10 years. You log in every day and explore new areas, finish quests, see the story, all for the very first time, all with persistent advancement holding out a carrot. That's compelling stuff. It all falls to pieces when you hit maximum level, which coincidentally is when I stop playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 10, 2013, 12:19:54 PM
Personally, I feel the WoW leveling experience compares well against any great game from the past 10 years. You log in every day and explore new areas, finish quests, see the story, all for the very first time, all with persistent advancement holding out a carrot. That's compelling stuff. It all falls to pieces when you hit maximum level, which coincidentally is when I stop playing.

It's funny... GW2 has captured most of this and presented it in a much better way.  Still, I find myself looking upon WoW more fondly than GW2.  This nostalgia shit is a powerful drug. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 10, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
The "I can go back to the game where I have an established character and I've done with my grinding" is a pretty powerful draw it must be said, even for a game that's probably better than WOW. Why stick with this and put all the efforts into leveling and gearing up when you still have your kick ass character back in blizzardville. 
Err, that gameplay is supposed to be fun. If you don't enjoy it you shouldn't feel compelled to play.

The obvious response is "the real game starts at max level" but does it, really? Did you have more fun leveling your first character or doing endgame stuff in WoW?

Personally, I feel the WoW leveling experience compares well against any great game from the past 10 years. You log in every day and explore new areas, finish quests, see the story, all for the very first time, all with persistent advancement holding out a carrot. That's compelling stuff. It all falls to pieces when you hit maximum level, which coincidentally is when I stop playing.

I would agree only with the caveat that it only worked for me in Vanilla. After it just become routine and trivial (leveling, questing and "exploring"), it was just too procedural.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2013, 02:33:17 PM
Personally, I feel the WoW leveling experience compares well against any great game from the past 10 years. You log in every day and explore new areas, finish quests, see the story, all for the very first time, all with persistent advancement holding out a carrot. That's compelling stuff. It all falls to pieces when you hit maximum level, which coincidentally is when I stop playing.

It's funny... GW2 has captured most of this and presented it in a much better way.  Still, I find myself looking upon WoW more fondly than GW2.  This nostalgia shit is a powerful drug. 

Not for me. The lack of narrative framing for the heart 'quests' and the fact that everything else you do you're likely to wander in halfway and not know why you're doing what you're doing because you missed the NPC firing the event off, etc., sucks out a lot of the appeal for me. I think PQs have their place but when you use them for all the content in your game it ends up being not much better than camping the fin tree or redcaps in DAOC, especially when the 'efficient' thing to do is run the same event chain over and over and over.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on December 10, 2013, 03:18:27 PM
Not for me. The lack of narrative framing for the heart 'quests' and the fact that everything else you do you're likely to wander in halfway and not know why you're doing what you're doing because you missed the NPC firing the event off, etc., sucks out a lot of the appeal for me.

This was my opinion as well. GW2 was great at constantly giving me something interesting to do and showing me pretty things to gawk at. It was terribly, terribly poor at providing context for what was going on. I wandered around aimlessly, lost in a trailer for a Michael Bay movie. And don't get me started on the mealy-mouthed hero-isms that drooled from "my" character's mouth in any cutscene...

When I quit the game all I could really tell you about its story was that Dragons destroyed the world, and we used to hate the Charr but now we hate the Centaurs. Beyond that, "things happened" and I rarely knew why or what the theoretical effects of my actions were. I'm not going to pretend that any current MMORPG is doing anything amazing, but to me GW2 felt like a big step back for storytelling in this genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 10, 2013, 04:31:22 PM
It can pretty cool when you ARE there at the start of an event in GW2, but that's pretty rare. And now that the player populations are spread out more, you do finally get to see what happens when you fail events. I won't lie, I enjoy liberating towns that had their event fail because no one was there.  :why_so_serious:

The storytelling does mostly suck (I like the early personal story shit that depends on the background stuff you picked well enough, once the orders get involved it turns into Paint By Numbers time), but the fact I can go back to a zone I've technically outleveled and still gain something beyond a personal sense of "I went here" is pretty huge for me. I never go do zones just to do them in games like WoW. If it's grey, it might as well not exist. Nothing turns grey in GW2, and that is one of its biggest strengths imo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 10, 2013, 04:50:31 PM
What I meant to say about GW2 was that they got rid of most of the things I hated in WoW.  No taking of spawns (everyone can tag them), no racing for nodes, and a spirit of cooperativity (xp for rezzes, etc). 

I agree that quests, story, and dungeon mechanics were far superior in WoW.  I just wish they wouldn't have dumbed it down so much.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 10, 2013, 05:28:20 PM
Leveling your first character in GW2 is an amazing experience if your tastes skew towards explorer, rather than achiever. I'm also continually amazed by the sheer quantity and quality of one-off art arenanet created for that game. They add new content every 2-3 weeks, too.

For an achiever, nothing can touch that first WoW character. Tons of exploration in WoW too, but it doesn't have that feeling of an unending vista like GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 10, 2013, 06:12:08 PM
The horrible dungeon design in GW2 was most definitely the nail in the coffin for me.  I could go further and blame the lack of trinity as the problem, but if they had simply found something to replace it with it might have been okay.  But no, lets have all the same dungeon mechanics that every other game has and just let people kite things around and die repeatedly so that no one has to be arsed to tank or heal.  Can't dodge red circles? NP, we will just keep ressing each other till the boss dies of boredom.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2013, 06:56:59 PM
They add new content every 2-3 weeks, too.

And then they remove it, which I find really frustrating.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on December 10, 2013, 08:31:55 PM
The horrible dungeon design in GW2 was most definitely the nail in the coffin for me.  I could go further and blame the lack of trinity as the problem, but if they had simply found something to replace it with it might have been okay.  But no, lets have all the same dungeon mechanics that every other game has and just let people kite things around and die repeatedly so that no one has to be arsed to tank or heal.  Can't dodge red circles? NP, we will just keep ressing each other till the boss dies of boredom.

I've still yet to do a dungeon in GW2, because everyone I know fucking hates them. I don't have a problem with a trinity (no doubt in part because I enjoy all three aspects of the tank/heal/deepz one), so I will totally blame the lack of trinity as the problem if you don't want to.  :why_so_serious:  But when there aren't really any roles, it seems really weird to go with encounter design that sort of depended on those roles to exist in order to not be total shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 10, 2013, 08:53:44 PM
I LOOOOOOVED GW2 for the first three zones but at one point it just got too repetitive.  The exploration I loved was still there but nothing felt distinct enough to keep my attention, maybe the combat started wearing thin or mob design, I honestly can't say but I was hooked on the game hard but then just as quickly lost it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 10, 2013, 09:33:28 PM
I've still yet to do a dungeon in GW2, because everyone I know fucking hates them.

They're terrible.  Nothing but crack monkey, circle strafe ability spamfests.   GW2 is all about exploration and WvW.  There's no point in playing it for any other reason. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 10, 2013, 09:34:56 PM
But when there aren't really any roles, it seems really weird to go with encounter design that sort of depended on those roles to exist in order to not be total shit.

Yep.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on December 10, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
The exploration in GW2 was an achievers idea of what exploration should be.  I got pretty tired early on of the game telling me where all the poi and vista's where and turning it into another list to fill.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 10, 2013, 11:32:46 PM
I duno man, GW2 seems OK as a casual MMO. But when they go hardcore - they went full retard. It was very, very unhealthy.
I did enjoy the jaunt to lvl 40 but past that, I see no point in continuing.
The only reason why I stuck to max level and explored the dungeons a bit is to kit myself up and do some WvW.
Conclusion: It wasn't worth it. The WvW bored me quickly and hours of trading objectives and zerging wasn't that interesting compared to just booting up a quick team FPS.

PVE-wise, the dungeon runs with regular crew was very quick and dirty - but I recall my first experience with randoms being so utterly negative it turned me off completely. The only thing that kept me around was the guild and having a regular crew. Once they quit, I found very little reason to stick around as well. Also when they introduced that pocket dimensional dungeon with varying level of 'attunements' I decided it's time to gtfo and uninstall this 30gb monster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on December 10, 2013, 11:33:26 PM
I've still yet to do a dungeon in GW2, because everyone I know fucking hates them.

They're terrible.  Nothing but crack monkey, circle strafe ability spamfests.  

And fractals are this to the power of 100 with more annoying shit included.  It's a hard mode pve'rs wet dream.

Game's fun to fuck around in.  Season 1 has burned me out a bit on WvW, so I'm doing the dumb holiday stuff (this Winter's Day one is bad and they should feel bad for putting it in.  2 5mans, a really annoying jumping puzzle, and some sort of bell ringing nonsense), and the end of the tower of nightmares (sloppy and bad as well).   The 5 man's... people won't want to group for this gimmicky shit for long.  Why not just have it scale?  YOU HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY, WE'VE SEEN IT.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 10, 2013, 11:52:54 PM
I've still yet to do a dungeon in GW2, because everyone I know fucking hates them.

They're terrible.  Nothing but crack monkey, circle strafe ability spamfests.   GW2 is all about exploration and WvW.  There's no point in playing it for any other reason. 
And the exploration........bleh.  This coming as a person who very much is in the exploration archtype.  The world was just too bland.  I mean, it looked pretty enough when you very first entered it, and finding the little hidden things as a challenge was really neat (even if half of them involved jumping puzzles with mmo controls....).  But evertyhing just looked the god damned same after awhile.  It got really bland very quickly.  Nothing had the sort of specialied character or pop that WoW, or even EQ, zones had.  I wish somebody would steal the exploration mechanices from them, but put it into a much better world with more hand crafted unique zones.

Becaause of this and the fact that the gameplay itself got kind of boring/grindy quick, I never even made it to the WvW.  It was yet another game I didn't even make it past 'the free month'.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on December 11, 2013, 07:11:32 AM
I actually really like GW2 dungeons, at least now, after the retuning of most of them. I don't like being forced to do the Story version before the Explorable. That's lame. And a couple are still a bit much. But mostly I enjoyed them.

GW2 hits a very nice spot for me. I can drop in and out of new content. If I like it, I'm there. If it's lame, I'm not. It's nice.

ACTUAL TESO NEWS: PC release date of April 4th.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 11, 2013, 07:21:00 AM
Yes, April 4th. (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2013/12/11/eso-release-plans-announced)

PS4 and XBOXONE two months later, in June.


(http://static.elderscrollsonline.com/assets/img/cms/media/blogs/a52500bbbb4e81bf5bccaad775d55b92.jpg)

A new video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQFxE4AESn4), and a message by Firor.

Quote
Greetings everyone. As we are approaching the end of 2013 and heading into our launch year, I thought I’d take a moment to thank you, our community, for your continued support. I’d also like to give you an update on the game’s development and our launch plans for 2014.

First, thanks to everyone involved in the ESO community: those we met at trade shows, those of you on social media, and those that have had a chance to play the game and provided invaluable feedback through beta testing. I personally am humbled by the intense feelings of excitement expressed to us by the community at large. At shows like PAX East, PAX Prime, Gamescom, Eurogamer Expo, Paris Games Week, etc. – we always had three to four hour lines to play ESO. We know those wait times weren’t easy, and the great patience and enthusiastic reception you showed was remarkable. Everyone here at ZeniMax Online appreciates each and every one of you and your fantastic support of the game.

Game development is coming along very well. We completed major systems development, and are focusing on making this the Elder Scrolls game you expect: polishing the hundreds and hundreds of hours of content, making combat even more fun and responsive, fixing quest issues, and much, much more. In fact, we plan on spending the next few months before launch reacting to the latest feedback from internal and external testers and gameplay data we have collected.

As some of you know, we’ve been in beta testing for about a year now, leading up to our most recent test in late November where we had over 300,000 people in the game over a 48 hour period. We’ve had approximately 4 million people sign up for beta and that number continues to grow. We hope that just about every one of you who have signed up for beta will get an invitation to play sometime between now and the weeks before launch. These tests are very important, not only for gameplay feedback, but also to test our infrastructure. Beta tests can sometimes be a little rough when we are testing some systems for the first time with large numbers of players. So thank you to all who have participated for your understanding and support. It is very much appreciated.

Worldwide demand for The Elder Scrolls Online is extraordinarily high. This means we need to do a staggered rollout of the different versions of the game to spread out the initial service load and ensure an enjoyable, smooth gameplay experience. It is not only a game we are launching – it is a large online service as well, and our number one priority is to ensure a trouble-free, stable rollout for everyone.

We long ago promised that as soon as a version of the game is ready, we will launch it. So we’re happy to announce that the game will launch worldwide for PC and Mac players on Friday, April 4, 2014, while PlayStation 4 and Xbox One fans will see the game arriving on consoles in June 2014.

Again, thank you for your continued support and enthusiasm over the past year. We are very proud of this game and excited to share it with you. We can’t wait to see you in the game in 2014!  —Matt


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 11, 2013, 07:28:33 AM
I think i saw someone using a gun.  That looked awful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 11, 2013, 07:56:05 AM
GW2 had terrible dungeons and the class system was dreadful because you got all of your abilities at 20 and then you had 60 levels to go of sameness. Unfortunately traits didn't change my gameplay enough to get my excited.

The MMORPG genre is awful at creating class systems these days and that's the most fun of any development process. I guess all the interesting devs went to making champs/heroes for MOBAs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 11, 2013, 08:21:05 AM
Elder Scrolls launching in April? They better double down on their fixes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 11, 2013, 08:22:12 AM
The exploration in GW2 was an achievers idea of what exploration should be. 
Well put. That succinctly explains why I liked it so much.

Straining NDA a bit, but April seems... early... for ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on December 11, 2013, 08:49:02 AM
Eh, any real changes they'd make would essentially be "total redesign" in nature, so April seems fine for this iteration.  Polish is really all they're gonna be able to do as the game right now is what it is. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 11, 2013, 09:12:41 AM
Yeah, they are not going to remake the game at this point, it is what it is.  April seems fine for bug fixing and polish, not to make a completely different game that doesn't suck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 11, 2013, 10:15:13 AM
I think they are aware of the issues, as they stated in that letter, the main one of which was highlighted.

I remain skeptical that they can do what they promised in 12 months, let alone 4.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on December 11, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
Well, ESO was supposed to launch this fall until they decided to do console versions too  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on December 11, 2013, 10:26:54 AM
So we can expect the next WoW expansion to launch right around that time?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on December 11, 2013, 10:33:35 AM
If by "WoW expansion" you mean Wildstar, yes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 11, 2013, 10:59:58 AM
I think i saw someone using a gun.  That looked awful.

Hand crossbow.

Eh, any real changes they'd make would essentially be "total redesign" in nature, so April seems fine for this iteration.  Polish is really all they're gonna be able to do as the game right now is what it is. 

Point is, April seems awfully soon even for just polish.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: EWSpider on December 11, 2013, 11:04:15 AM
I actually really like GW2 dungeons, at least now, after the retuning of most of them. I don't like being forced to do the Story version before the Explorable. That's lame. And a couple are still a bit much. But mostly I enjoyed them.

GW2 hits a very nice spot for me. I can drop in and out of new content. If I like it, I'm there. If it's lame, I'm not. It's nice.

ACTUAL TESO NEWS: PC release date of April 4th.

I like the dungeons as well.  I think people's dislike comes from trying the Story mode at the minimum level in bad gear without a good understanding of their class.  Try some of the Explorable paths again with a level 80 character in decent gear that you're very experienced with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 11, 2013, 12:12:01 PM
I have always pictured a "true" exploration MMO as being more like Skies of Arcadia, but Internet plus content burn rate probably makes that impossible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 11, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
As stated countless times before, people only want the illusion of exploration.  They certainly don't want to march out into the middle of nowhere and find, *gasp,* nothing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on December 11, 2013, 02:49:05 PM
Err, yeah, nobody wants a featureless plane, but I have no doubt possible to make exploring compelling without attaching an explicit achievement mechanic to it ala GW2. For example, look to the Timeless Isle in WoW.

Yeah, yeah, it's terrible now. But imagine if the entire world was full of little hidden rewards and events and minibosses to experience, and there was enough of it so it wasn't instantly spoiled and you could keep on exploring, and it wasn't horribly crowded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 11, 2013, 03:49:00 PM
Animations in that trailer sure are weak, aren't they?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on December 11, 2013, 04:16:36 PM
Err, yeah, nobody wants a featureless plane, but I have no doubt possible to make exploring compelling without attaching an explicit achievement mechanic to it ala GW2. For example, look to the Timeless Isle in WoW.

Yeah, yeah, it's terrible now. But imagine if the entire world was full of little hidden rewards and events and minibosses to experience, and there was enough of it so it wasn't instantly spoiled and you could keep on exploring, and it wasn't horribly crowded.

Probably the thing I miss most from playing Asheron's Call, just picking a direction and wandering.

Trailer was okay, but had some noticeable hiccups. I hope they can get a lot accomplished in those 4 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on December 11, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
Animations in that trailer sure are weak, aren't they?  :oh_i_see:

Yeah, its so true what people have been saying, that the graphics look like they're from 2003 instead of 2013. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 11, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
I can't tell who's being sarcastic anymore. Lost that sense or something. So I'll just take it at face value.

That video looked terrible. It looked like DAoC in Vanguard's engine, for a game brand whose entire heritage is a single player PvE RPG in a highly detailed and beautiful world. I don't know who that video was for. I don't even know if they know. What I played at PAX eight months ago looked a hell of a lot better, so I have no idea what's going on.

Announcing your April launch alongside an open letter that claims combat will eventually be more fun isn't good PR either.

Eh, 55 pages and weeks of NDA slips and the general opinion doesn't seem to have evolved at all. It's not even fun to pile on the hate. It's turning into WAR.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 11, 2013, 06:39:00 PM
It's turning into WAR.

They would be lucky if they made it to WAR level by April.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on December 11, 2013, 06:49:23 PM
Yea, WAR was great fun for ~20 levels.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on December 11, 2013, 07:12:31 PM
That video made me actually feel real-world embarrassment for the people responsible.  This is a feat, considering everything that's happened since 1997.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 12, 2013, 12:34:51 AM
Err, yeah, nobody wants a featureless plane, but I have no doubt possible to make exploring compelling without attaching an explicit achievement mechanic to it ala GW2. For example, look to the Timeless Isle in WoW.

Yeah, yeah, it's terrible now. But imagine if the entire world was full of little hidden rewards and events and minibosses to experience, and there was enough of it so it wasn't instantly spoiled and you could keep on exploring, and it wasn't horribly crowded.

Probably the thing I miss most from playing Asheron's Call, just picking a direction and wandering.


That is literally what they want to do with EverQuest Next. If they will be able to achieve that is a different story, but that's at least the plan.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 12, 2013, 12:36:50 AM
That video looked terrible. It looked like DAoC in Vanguard's engine, for a game brand whose entire heritage is a single player PvE RPG in a highly detailed and beautiful world.

For fairness, while the video looks horrible and really makes you wonder who the hell is in charge for these things, the actual game looks much much better. The visuals aren't really the problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 12, 2013, 12:51:02 AM
The world looks good. The character visuals are ass.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 12, 2013, 01:22:02 AM
That is sadly true, although it is probably a compromise necessary to manage hundreds of characters on screen at the same time in massive PvP battles without turning it to a slideshow or have too much culling.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on December 12, 2013, 06:20:07 AM
You can never have too much culling.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 12, 2013, 06:31:54 AM
You can never have too much culling.

The original Elder Scrolls game series had the perfect amount of culling.  It culled everyone but me!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on December 12, 2013, 11:50:45 AM

A new video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQFxE4AESn4),

(http://i.imgur.com/uHZI5BY.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on December 12, 2013, 12:01:29 PM
Watched the video just now, and it struck me that I have never seen - in any MMO that I've played - two factions line up in battle formations before charging at eachother. Yet marketing teams insist on including such scenes in every damn MMO trailer. The same goes for people having "duels" on the battlefield. Reality of MMO combat is either full out chaos or 5 vs 1 gankfests, not 1 vs 1 duels scattered across the entire battlefield. </minor rant>

Fake edit: Wait, actually, I lie. I have seen two factions line up in battle formation and charging in. It happened in the early UO days, and the factions were identified by the color of their cloaks. Capes. Whatever they were. Oh well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on December 12, 2013, 12:03:41 PM
It happens all the time in GW2, the forming up and crashing into each other constantly. It's a side effect of their buff/heal system and AE target caps.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 12, 2013, 12:14:38 PM
I'm not sure what their target audience is here?  Is it Elder Scrolls fans who thought the games would be better if there were 1000 players?  Is it MMO fans and the Elder Scrolls IP is just because?  Is it people who quit WAR?

Do they even know?

Seriously, if someone showed me that without the map scenes there is no reason to believe this is an Elder Scrolls game.  I know there are some gameplay videos are around of things that look more elder scrolls-y, but...it's just such a bizarre video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 12, 2013, 12:45:47 PM
None of those.  Their demographic is a bunch of suits who dream of money hats but don't have any clue about what they're doing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 12, 2013, 02:21:24 PM
The marketing team is going to have to earn their money on this one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 12, 2013, 02:22:38 PM
The marketing team is going to have to earn their money on this one.

They better be selling nostalgia for the old days.  The character and combat animations are TERRIBLE in that video... and that's coming from someone that typically doesn't care about graphics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on December 12, 2013, 07:09:13 PM
What's the over/under on the panicked conversion to F2P? We should start a betting pool.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on December 12, 2013, 07:46:02 PM
8 months to announcement, 12 months to rollout. 

I'd guarantee they've already put the rollout plan in place. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 13, 2013, 02:52:28 AM
They will most certainly have discussed F2P to some degree and they probably have a rough sketch about how they would implement it if they feel its necessary. But they won't have mentioned this at meetings with investors. Its gonna be "This is the next WOW!!" to them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MisterNoisy on December 13, 2013, 04:47:32 AM
Played this a bit on a friend's beta invite.  I wish them luck.

On a related note, that video posted earlier is hilarious.  How does someone look at that and say 'This is definitely putting our best foot forward', and if they do, what does that say about the rest of the game?

EDIT:  NDA considerations.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on December 13, 2013, 09:26:09 AM
What's the over/under on the panicked conversion to F2P? We should start a betting pool.

6 months to a year.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 13, 2013, 10:54:42 AM
3 months and this is on Steam for $9.99.

6 months and it's F2P.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on December 13, 2013, 11:02:37 AM
F2P announced at 6 months, complete by 9.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 13, 2013, 11:05:52 AM
July 3rd, they announce F2P.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on December 13, 2013, 12:19:45 PM
8 months announce, 10 months implementation.

And I actually like it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 13, 2013, 12:32:21 PM
I'll take the over on 6 months.  The writing will be on the wall, but they are going to try and avoid admitting it for longer than that, I think.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on December 13, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
I'm going for the long shot. They'll do a War and ride it into a controlled impact with terrain.

No F2P. Shutdown at 18 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on December 13, 2013, 12:57:47 PM
TES is a big name, they'll be too prideful to jump into FTP quickly. One year.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on December 13, 2013, 01:14:34 PM
My guess is that it will be buy to play within a year of release (with some form of cash shop)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 13, 2013, 01:49:14 PM
My guess is that it will be buy to play within a year of release (with some form of cash shop)

Like TSW?  Might make sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 13, 2013, 02:07:06 PM
Four months to announce, fully f2p converted by October. They'll hope to gasp holiday attention.

More important bet: either this thread or the inevitable ESO sub-form will be Den'd within a month of creation :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 13, 2013, 02:08:07 PM
I predict this game won't get a subforum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on December 13, 2013, 02:09:06 PM
I predict this game won't get a subforum.

Even if it was a runaway success, Schild wouldn't give it a subforum.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on December 13, 2013, 02:14:12 PM
Like success at making people run away. TESO, Horror Factor 8.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 13, 2013, 02:15:54 PM
Please. WAR had a sub-forum  :oh_i_see:

But yes, may not be enough interest even leading up to launch for one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 13, 2013, 02:30:07 PM
WAR had a subforum because Schild ws excited about it, made a guild for it and played it a lot everyday for the first two weeks. In fact, he made two guilds. Not exactly what I think it's gonna happen here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2013, 02:42:10 PM
Please. WAR had a sub-forum  :oh_i_see:

But yes, may not be enough interest even leading up to launch for one.

WAR had a subforum because it seemed like it was going to be a good game, and even had us all fooled through level 18-19 or so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on December 13, 2013, 02:44:28 PM
No sub forum.

B2P in time for holidays 2014. On sale for $10-15 on Steam by summer sale 2014.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 13, 2013, 03:28:22 PM
We could make a guild named "Schadenfreude".   :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on December 13, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
War was the hope of DAOC with lessons learned, and the reality that none were.

Are they still gathering metrics?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on December 13, 2013, 03:53:38 PM
Watched the video just now, and it struck me that I have never seen - in any MMO that I've played - two factions line up in battle formations before charging at eachother. Yet marketing teams insist on including such scenes in every damn MMO trailer. The same goes for people having "duels" on the battlefield. Reality of MMO combat is either full out chaos or 5 vs 1 gankfests, not 1 vs 1 duels scattered across the entire battlefield. </minor rant>

Fake edit: Wait, actually, I lie. I have seen two factions line up in battle formation and charging in. It happened in the early UO days, and the factions were identified by the color of their cloaks. Capes. Whatever they were. Oh well.

Matrix online with the combat lock mechanism


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on December 13, 2013, 04:58:48 PM
WAR had a subforum because it seemed like it was going to be a good game
(http://i.minus.com/iH9hoIfTPjXb8.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2013, 05:12:42 PM
You're not remembering right, then. Early anticipation was pretty high and when we all got into tier 1 PVP opinions were pretty universally high.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 13, 2013, 05:31:53 PM
Early anticipation was high and that means nothing. Until a couple years ago anticipation used to be high for everything. Also, people were still hungry for dikus and the likes back then and this one at least had an amazing IP (Warhammer) with an amazing distant parent (DAOC), so everyone really wanted to believe in it. Also I have never stopped calling bullshit on the "PvP was great for the first 20 levels" story. I am not saying you guys didn't have fun, I am saying that when such fun didn't actually last more than a month then you are just bloating the memory of a sugar high into a trip through Bat Country (the real one) that never happened.

Warhammer was shit, and that little taste of PvP came at the right time and in the right IP for people to suspend cynicism for a millisecond and just have an instant of spontaneous fun. But it didn't last because it was shit, not because you leveled up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 13, 2013, 06:09:15 PM
Level 11 PvP stayed fun even after I got to the high level shit show. It was the only thing I kept playing for for quite a while. Don't be Rokal in the WoW thread, the game was not so long ago that I can't trust my memories.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 13, 2013, 07:02:57 PM
A lot of us got to play the "levels 1-10" beta, so yes anticipation was very high cause that shit was fun as fuck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 13, 2013, 09:23:04 PM
Yeah, anticipation was high around here.  I was still pretty cool on it and only played it due to the roommate, but even I was surprised by the fun I had in early levels.  Also it remains the only MMO PvP I really enjoyed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 14, 2013, 12:26:59 AM
I enjoyed dropping into WAR 1-10 PVP and that means something as I normally HATE PVP in these sort of games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 14, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
I think it had more to do with beta than it did 1-10.  Throughout the last phases of open beta people PvPed in tier 1 and 2 like crazy.  The open PvP in the game was not bad in principle at any level.  What WAS bad was that as soon as the game was live people cared knew they weren't going to be wiped so boiled everything down to the most efficient path of progression.  After level 10 people realized scenarios, not open PvP was the smartest path for EXP + loot, so open PvP was totally abandoned until Max level, and then at max level it seemed that, at least on my server, the factions avoided each other as much as possible and did "keep trading" because it was the fastest way to farm loot.   Long battles actually were cool even at Max level, in the rare cases they happened.  And their end game city conquering meta game was so broken and stupid that there was little reason to care about who owned what and your faction rather than just your own personal gear progression.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 14, 2013, 10:25:10 AM
Scenarios weren't the most efficient path to leveling, they were REQUIRED because regular quest exp got nerfed into the ground.  Basically you couldn't keep up with levels unless you did tons of scenarios, world pvp exp is too unreliable and sucked even if you did it regularly.  You had to do scenarios because just regular questing left large gaps in between quest hubs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on December 14, 2013, 10:27:12 AM
So we're doing this again, eh?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 14, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
Every so often we must rekindle our hate.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 14, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Every so often we must rekindle our hate.

Better than nurturing virtual pets :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 14, 2013, 07:30:02 PM
I miss my dalyrakes. :cry:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 15, 2013, 11:53:03 AM
Early anticipation was high and that means nothing.

Um, it certainly means something for whether or not a game gets a subforum. Which was what I was actually talking about there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ard on December 16, 2013, 01:50:28 AM
Instead of a suibforum, can we get this thread itself moved directly to the gaming graveyard?   I'm pretty sure everything that's needed saying has been said by now  :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on December 16, 2013, 03:59:17 AM
Wow, a game getting a section in the graveyard before its even released. That's a new record.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 16, 2013, 04:31:24 AM
No it isn't. When we got our Blood Bowl subforum it actually started in the Graveyard, before getting promoted into the PC/Console gaming section.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on December 16, 2013, 04:45:25 AM
Warhammer 1-11 was fun, and it was one of two games (EvE being the other) where I had a really good experience playing with f13'ers.  Levels12+ were a total shitshow and it kind of makes me sad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 16, 2013, 12:43:21 PM
I think we already talked about Warhammer sucking, has this thread come full circle?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Paelos on December 16, 2013, 12:46:56 PM
I'm tired of hearing companies say they're working on a "AAA" title. At best they'll release a "B" quality game.

This is full circle. Still applies today!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on December 17, 2013, 07:00:27 AM
By working on an AAA title they usually mean they're wasting an AAA budget


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 17, 2013, 07:05:28 AM
A B quality game is optimistic really.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 21, 2013, 06:02:43 AM
We could make a guild named "Schadenfreude".   :grin:

Schildenfreude.

I may have just said something incredibly offensive in German.

F2P or equivalent by 9 months post-launch. Good launch sales, followed by a lot of dead servers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on December 21, 2013, 04:10:30 PM


F2P or equivalent by 9 months post-launch. Good launch sales, followed by a lot of dead servers.

Way to go out on a limb. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: K9 on December 21, 2013, 04:47:02 PM
Watched the video just now, and it struck me that I have never seen - in any MMO that I've played - two factions line up in battle formations before charging at eachother. Yet marketing teams insist on including such scenes in every damn MMO trailer. The same goes for people having "duels" on the battlefield. Reality of MMO combat is either full out chaos or 5 vs 1 gankfests, not 1 vs 1 duels scattered across the entire battlefield. </minor rant>

Fake edit: Wait, actually, I lie. I have seen two factions line up in battle formation and charging in. It happened in the early UO days, and the factions were identified by the color of their cloaks. Capes. Whatever they were. Oh well.

We used to get it all the time for tower wars in Anarchy Online. The lack of any meaningful AoE damage meant that blob vs blob was definitely the way to go.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on December 22, 2013, 12:17:48 PM
WvW in GW2 is also blob v blob with the limits on aoe damage.  I find it terribly dull.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 22, 2013, 09:56:12 PM


F2P or equivalent by 9 months post-launch. Good launch sales, followed by a lot of dead servers.

Way to go out on a limb. :awesome_for_real:

This time won't be different.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on December 22, 2013, 10:54:12 PM
Even Massively voted this game "Most likely to Flop 2013."  By the time they find out something its usually already been true for 6 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on December 25, 2013, 02:41:59 PM
Have these guys talked even just a little bit about dropping the NDA or


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 25, 2013, 03:58:49 PM
They would be crazy to do that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ard on December 25, 2013, 05:04:58 PM
Not that dropping the NDA is anymore likely to help them than not dropping it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on December 25, 2013, 05:53:05 PM
I watched the video.  My eldest watched the video.

Eldest: "Holy shit there's lag in this video.  That's promising!"

I had to laugh at the animations.  What year is it indeed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 01, 2014, 01:13:59 PM
Trigger Warning: Kotaku writer.

(http://abload.de/img/teso4vs94.png)

lmao if true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on January 01, 2014, 02:06:41 PM
Seems low, actually.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on January 01, 2014, 04:31:02 PM
I dunno, $200m is higher than I was guessing, if it's true.

SW:TOR was rumored to be about $200m, and that was presumably because of the cinematics and voice acting budget, and I was pretty shocked at that.  AFAIK the highest budget game of all time (marketing included) is GTA5, and that's only $250m or so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on January 01, 2014, 04:35:03 PM
$200m is something that should make one laugh hysterically followed by slitting ones wrists.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 01, 2014, 04:52:04 PM
They got a lot less for their 200 million than Bioware did if that's true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 01, 2014, 07:39:09 PM
They easily could have saved $100M of that if they cut ties to the project back a year and a half ago in my mind.

The only question left is will they make up the variable cost they laid out in box sales to offset the damage this will do to the brand.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 01, 2014, 07:58:01 PM
Brand will be fine even if/when this tanks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on January 02, 2014, 02:23:08 AM
They got a lot less for their 200 million than Bioware did if that's true.

I'm waiting for the surprise announcement that all the text is voice acted.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on January 02, 2014, 07:38:10 AM
I'm sure the development team won't fall into the trap of adding more servers in the first month due to release hype only to have empty server graveyards 4 months out.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 02, 2014, 07:44:25 AM
I'm sure the development team won't fall into the trap of adding more servers in the first month due to release hype only to have empty server graveyards 4 months out.  :oh_i_see:

"But look how many people are buying copies of the game! Even if we lose 25% we're golden!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on January 02, 2014, 09:10:00 AM
I'm sure the development team won't fall into the trap of adding more servers in the first month due to release hype only to have empty server graveyards 4 months out.  :oh_i_see:

Queues to actually get into the game and a monthly fee could be a very bad combination... unless your game is something truly special (of which there is no indication on ESO's part so far)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 02, 2014, 10:00:53 AM
Wasn't this going to be a megaserver type thing?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 07, 2014, 03:26:44 PM
Might want to check you emails.  Beta invites for this weekend have been sent out.  Also  :nda:.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 07, 2014, 04:03:42 PM
I have 7 keys available for the stress test. You must be available to play from Friday, January 10th at 6:00PM EST until Sunday, January 12th at 11:59PM EST. First 7 people to PM me with over 500 posts with a join date over one year will get em.

Edit: all gone


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on January 07, 2014, 04:53:41 PM
I got an invite, but I can't muster a shit to give.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 07, 2014, 05:21:16 PM
Would love a spare key if there is one just to witness this thing in action.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on January 08, 2014, 03:37:21 AM

I don't want a beta pass, I just want the NDA to drop so I can start enjoying the spectacle.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 08, 2014, 06:57:31 AM
I got an invite, but I can't muster a shit to give.
This. The bit I may or may not have played last beta was enough for me to make up my mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on January 09, 2014, 05:40:05 PM
I wish I could be assed to download the 25+ gig installer all over again. But hell no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on January 10, 2014, 06:48:54 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/elder-scrolls-online-invites-sent-for-beta-game-1.2489996

Quote
The Elder Scrolls Online will retail for $59.99 on all platforms, and monthly subscriptions after the first month will cost $14.99.

Awe inspiring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: luckton on January 10, 2014, 07:02:27 AM
 :rofl:

At this point, my money's on Wildstar actually being able to deliver and maintain a subscription-level product.  They really should have gone the GW2/Secret World approach with this. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2014, 07:20:23 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/elder-scrolls-online-invites-sent-for-beta-game-1.2489996

Quote
The Elder Scrolls Online will retail for $59.99 on all platforms, and monthly subscriptions after the first month will cost $14.99.

Awe inspiring.

They can't even do this right. If you want to defray the cost of your fuckup, you don't price it at top end when the fence people will learn how shitty your game is after release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on January 10, 2014, 08:26:32 AM
It's been a while since we've seen an awe inspiring MMO train wreck.  Is it wrong that I'm looking forward to seeing this one go off the tracks in a hugely expensive and hilarious way?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on January 10, 2014, 08:27:37 AM
It probably is wrong, but I am looking forward to it too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2014, 08:28:43 AM
There would be something wrong with you if you weren't looking forward to this disaster. The sheer amount of hubris involved by none other than the brilliant mind who was an executive producer of Trials of Atlantis? Pure gold.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 10, 2014, 09:29:43 AM
It's been a while since we've seen an awe inspiring MMO train wreck.  Is it wrong that I'm looking forward to seeing this one go off the tracks in a hugely expensive and hilarious way?

If it is wrong then I don't want to be right. This was a terrible fucking idea from the very outset and seeing it fail will make me even smugger than I am now. If that is possible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on January 10, 2014, 09:49:12 AM
Key is no longer available.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 10, 2014, 11:10:26 AM
Start downloading now and you might be done by Sunday!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on January 10, 2014, 11:57:38 AM
That'll give you more than enough time to figure out what's wrong with this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 10, 2014, 11:58:16 AM
Send me a PM - first come, first served.

I hope you have enough space in your inbox!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: luckton on January 10, 2014, 12:01:37 PM
Hell, I'll pay you NOT to use the code.  That'll show 'em!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 11, 2014, 04:00:40 AM
Not trying to break the NDA or anything, but the claims that this game looks like crap are greatly exaggerated. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 11, 2014, 05:25:14 AM
I think the world is pretty, but the characters are really bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 11, 2014, 05:40:11 AM
I think the world is pretty, but the characters are really bad.

I would dispute your claim but  :nda:.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on January 11, 2014, 05:46:48 AM
Not trying to break the NDA or anything, but the claims that this game looks like crap are greatly exaggerated. 

Yes. Very.

I'm going to say that their entire PR team should be fired and fired quickly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 11, 2014, 06:02:46 AM
I think the world is pretty, but the characters are really bad.

I would dispute your claim but  :nda:.

I don't think they are horrible per se. I think they are quite sad for 2014, art and animations. Not a big deal though if gameplay is good...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 11, 2014, 09:33:26 AM
Not trying to break the NDA or anything, but the claims that this game looks like crap are greatly exaggerated. 

It wasn't my biggest problem, no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on January 11, 2014, 10:06:53 AM
Not trying to break the NDA or anything, but the claims that this game looks like crap are greatly exaggerated.  

They drastically increased the texture resolution for this weekend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on January 11, 2014, 10:10:57 AM
Please, no NDA skirting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on January 11, 2014, 02:40:44 PM
Yeah, it makes the implosion at NDA release that much sweeter.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 12, 2014, 01:48:52 PM
Please, no NDA skirting.

How strong is the TESO NDA anyway? Is saying "I am in!" a breach?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 12, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
Please, no NDA skirting.

How strong is the TESO NDA anyway? Is saying "I am in!" a breach?

Yes, but nobody usually cares about that. They just don't want you discussing the game, the graphics, the changes, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on January 12, 2014, 03:18:38 PM
Im pretty sure rampant negativity is alot like ridiculous hype.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle. For a AAA game, though, especially one spending so much, the middle isn't really the target expectation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 12, 2014, 05:03:36 PM
Rampant negativity is the steady state on F13, the baseline. You need to earn your way up to disdain, then cautious optimism (which is as high as it gets).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 12, 2014, 05:04:59 PM
Rampant negativity is the steady state on F13, the baseline. You need to earn your way up to disdain, then cautious optimism (which is as high as it gets).

I think the HEX posts prove it can get higher than that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on January 12, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Hey, we love things that are only just ideas, and we love things that have long since perished.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 12, 2014, 05:38:18 PM
And we pretty much hate everything between birth and death.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on January 12, 2014, 06:02:57 PM
We love life! We just hate living it!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 12, 2014, 06:21:01 PM
And we pretty much hate everything between birth and death.  :why_so_serious:

Actually no. General rampant negativity is more fitting for RPGCodex. The "Hivemind" strawman gets thrown around here way too liberally (especially in politics), but sometimes it does exist. When something seems to be cool to hate suddenly everyone loves to pile on.


Which leads to situations were something that is "Quite OK, but not really inspiring" gets depicted as the biggest fuckup since the British retreat from Kabul in 1842.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on January 12, 2014, 06:47:16 PM
FWIW, I've been baffled by the complaints about graphics. I do have issues with the game (I won't discuss), but I was always happy with what the engine and the artists put out.

It could be that ESO's style of "simplified realism" simply agrees with my own taste, or that I'm unusual for expecting something that looked like an MMG rather than Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 12, 2014, 08:19:18 PM
FWIW, I've been baffled by the complaints about graphics. I do have issues with the game (I won't discuss), but I was always happy with what the engine and the artists put out.

It could be that ESO's style of "simplified realism" simply agrees with my own taste, or that I'm unusual for expecting something that looked like an MMG rather than Skyrim.

Yes. I think the graphic complaints stem mostly from the offical large scale pvp trailer. Which looked like something from 2007. As someone (Lantyssa?) said a page or two ago "The PR team should be fired".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 12, 2014, 09:46:04 PM
The fact that Warhammer MMO had better trailers made me even more sad.
TES is big IP though, it'll sell but the subs - the breath of giant MMOs, will grow short so quick and it'll die an excruciating death months into the game.
That's when they start selling player skin mods and go F2P route. Khajitt tiger stripes anyone?

(http://i.imgur.com/tdIIUm2.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on January 12, 2014, 10:04:26 PM
Well, I had fun, more than last time actually. But man, 11 weeks is just.... dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on January 13, 2014, 05:18:11 AM
Yes. I think the graphic complaints stem mostly from the offical large scale pvp trailer. Which looked like something from 2007. As someone (Lantyssa?) said a page or two ago "The PR team should be fired".

That was me. There's a gulf between what the game is/looks like and what's being presented by their marketing team. And it's not just the pvp trailer. Remember that picture with the weird looking dude with his mouth open at a weird angle? We were all laughing at it when it came out? Yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 13, 2014, 07:07:15 AM
:nda:

But since I'm going to talk some TES lore this doesn't count. The advertised bigbad of the game is Molag Bal.

Given the recent upswing in talk about 'insensitive' content in games I'd like to point out they basically picked the worst Daedra lord next to the one I can't remember who is basically the fertility/sex god.

The name Molag Bal is most known by after well, Molag Bal is "The Lord of Rape".

I have funny feeling you won't be seeing that title in this game, nor any reference to what his more devoted followers have to do to get his boon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 13, 2014, 07:16:52 AM
How is there even a bigbad since the whole frigging game is centered around factions warring each other?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 13, 2014, 08:08:02 AM
The factions are fighting eachother over the Imperial City, which is owned by crazy Molag Bal worshipping Imperials if I recall. Molag Bal steals your soul and throws you in coldharbor; you escape and not having a soul is the ingame canon reason you can come back when killed in game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 13, 2014, 08:16:29 AM
I don't really care for lore, but there are three things that drive MMOs. Gameplay, Lore, and People.

One of them you have no control over. The other two, well...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on January 13, 2014, 08:35:27 AM
I think they've walked back the Lord of Rape thing drastically over the years. He seems much more general enslavement, vampires, and domination now. Which still isn't pleasant but it is way less in your face.

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Molag_Bal

I've actually always loved the Elder Scrolls lore and world. Not enough to read every book or anything but I'm a real sucker for it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 13, 2014, 10:57:22 AM
I think they're just retconning him basically, which is perfectly fine with me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 13, 2014, 11:46:21 AM
Well in Dawnguard the story of the first vampire is recounted and its hinted darkly that it wasn't concentual. Serena hints that her ascension was "degrading"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 13, 2014, 12:41:40 PM
Appropriate post number.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 13, 2014, 01:21:55 PM
*sharpens pitchfork*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 13, 2014, 03:48:50 PM
I think they're just retconning him basically, which is perfectly fine with me.

"Now with 99% less rape!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 22, 2014, 12:32:12 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 22, 2014, 12:38:42 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...

Does anyone here think that the combat in this video looks fun and interesting?  

In case I'm not being transparent... I don't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 22, 2014, 12:41:20 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...

I'm not actually sure there's a ton of negative buzz. For some reason almost everyone talking in general during both the beta sessions I was in was super fired up about how great the game was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 22, 2014, 01:54:08 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...

I'm not actually sure there's a ton of negative buzz. For some reason almost everyone talking in general during both the beta sessions I was in was super fired up about how great the game was.

Is that not the case with most betas, though?  Everyone is usually eager to claim an MMO is great while beta testing but we all know that enthusiasm doesn't last into live.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on January 22, 2014, 02:01:44 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...

I'm not actually sure there's a ton of negative buzz. For some reason almost everyone talking in general during both the beta sessions I was in was super fired up about how great the game was.


Maybe the game is great and YOU are the problem!  :-o


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 22, 2014, 02:35:16 PM
I think that might be because the people who dislike it didn't come back from subsequent beta tests.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2014, 06:26:51 PM
That doesn't look awful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on January 22, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
Yeah I was expecting much worse. That earlier PvP video looked worse.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 22, 2014, 07:35:01 PM
Did it look $15 a month though?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 22, 2014, 08:20:54 PM
Did it look $15 a month though?

Yes... 10 years ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on January 22, 2014, 08:40:34 PM
It's pretty.

However, it looks like they took the parts of GW2 that I thought I would like, but didn't and smashed it together with a feature-starved WoW. 

Shouldn't we expect more from online games in 2014?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on January 22, 2014, 08:43:52 PM
I guess  I'm going to be the odd person out and say that that actually looked fun.  It doesn't look like you have to juggle 25 abilities like a lot more recent games.  It looks very action oriented and GW like but with the trinity (which as GW2 proved is a good thing).  Combat flow looks good.  I could see myself enjoying it, even with a monthly fee.

*shrug*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 22, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
It doesn't look like you have to juggle 25 abilities like a lot more recent games.

Hmm. It seems to me rather like MMOs have been stampeding away from having lots of abilities, rather than how you make it sound.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on January 22, 2014, 08:51:47 PM
It doesn't look like you have to juggle 25 abilities like a lot more recent games.

Hmm. It seems to me rather like MMOs have been stampeding away from having lots of abilities, rather than how you make it sound.

Which MMOs except for GW2 and TSW actually don't have more than one bar of abilities?  As far as I can see from reading posts both FFXI and SWTOR have a good number of abilities you have to juggle and those are really some of the more recent ones. 

I don't feel like there's been enough releases of MMOs to say there's a trend towards active ability reduction.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on January 22, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
Neverwinter doesn't have a bunch of hot bars either.

I haven't tried everything that's come out recently but SWTOR is the last one I've touched that had a lot of ability juggling ... and that's not really in the "recent" category in my eyes any more. I haven't tried the latest FF one though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2014, 12:10:42 AM
It doesn't look like you have to juggle 25 abilities like a lot more recent games.

Hmm. It seems to me rather like MMOs have been stampeding away from having lots of abilities, rather than how you make it sound.

Which MMOs except for GW2 and TSW actually don't have more than one bar of abilities?  As far as I can see from reading posts both FFXI and SWTOR have a good number of abilities you have to juggle and those are really some of the more recent ones.  

I don't feel like there's been enough releases of MMOs to say there's a trend towards active ability reduction.

Wildstar, TESO, Guild Wars 2, Neverwinter, TSW.  I might be missing some I didn't play. I didn't play FFXI but I also don't really think of that as new.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 23, 2014, 12:23:13 AM
GW2 technically has two bars on many classes if you count the number keys and the function keys for Elementalist, Mesmer, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on January 23, 2014, 12:30:58 AM
Also, LotRO's recent "NGE" robbed some classes of up to a third of their abilities.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 23, 2014, 07:01:28 AM
M rating for ESO.  That worked out all right for Conan!

Zenimax has already said they won't change anything. or challenge- must be something deeply baked in, otherwise you would think they would just cover the nipple on the statue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2014, 07:38:36 AM
Last I checked, the Elder Scrolls games didn't have hotbars at all, so while they may have a reasonable amount they're adding bars given the source material.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2014, 07:47:03 AM
There's no way to polish this turd. It's now moved from actual game into "box sales scam"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 23, 2014, 08:12:43 AM
They got a lot less for their 200 million than Bioware did if that's true.

I'm waiting for the surprise announcement that all the text is voice acted.

There you go.
John Cleese, Bill Nighy, Kate Beckinsale, Alfred Molina, Lynda Carter, Michael Gambon, and Malcolm McDowell (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/01/23/esos-voice-cast-announced).

(http://static.elderscrollsonline.com/assets/img/cms/media/blogs/1c426fb3130b9cf4451202bde76ac1d4.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 23, 2014, 08:14:48 AM
I thought it looked fun.  I would have liked to see it in HD unless, of course, it was my eyes that were blurry and not the video quality.  And it comes with Lum!  (not in a pervy way, though)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 23, 2014, 08:40:28 AM
There's no way to polish this turd. It's now moved from actual game into "box sales scam"

I still cannot tell if this thread is f13 goth affectation plus anti-mmo elder scroll purist crazies or real analysis.  If this was the movie forum, the negativity would allow me to confidently conclude that it must be the greatest mmo ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 23, 2014, 08:43:07 AM
They got a lot less for their 200 million than Bioware did if that's true.

I'm waiting for the surprise announcement that all the text is voice acted.

There you go.
John Cleese, Bill Nighy, Kate Beckinsale, Alfred Molina, Lynda Carter, Michael Gambon, and Malcolm McDowell (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/01/23/esos-voice-cast-announced).

(http://static.elderscrollsonline.com/assets/img/cms/media/blogs/1c426fb3130b9cf4451202bde76ac1d4.jpg)

The fuck is Lynda Carter doing there?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on January 23, 2014, 08:56:45 AM
I still cannot tell if this thread is f13 goth affectation plus anti-mmo elder scroll purist crazies or real analysis.  If this was the movie forum, the negativity would allow me to confidently conclude that it must be the greatest mmo ever.

NDA!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on January 23, 2014, 09:02:21 AM
Shouldn't we expect more from online games in 2014 2004?

Fixed that shit for you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on January 23, 2014, 09:03:09 AM
Dr. Sbaitso is missing from that image.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2014, 10:05:18 AM
There's no way to polish this turd. It's now moved from actual game into "box sales scam"

I still cannot tell if this thread is f13 goth affectation plus anti-mmo elder scroll purist crazies or real analysis.  If this was the movie forum, the negativity would allow me to confidently conclude that it must be the greatest mmo ever.

Judge for yourself, feel free to buy the game. I can't tell you why due to the NDA, but you were warned.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: PalmTrees on January 23, 2014, 10:09:58 AM

The fuck is Lynda Carter doing there?

Being shopped to look 30 years younger.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 23, 2014, 10:51:21 AM
Notice it is a headshot. Either she eventually opted for surgery (almost a guarantee) or those things are around her ankles by now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2014, 11:09:16 AM
Scam overstates it. The game isn't for me but it will have fans.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on January 23, 2014, 11:28:28 AM
The fuck is Lynda Carter doing there?

She's married to ZeniMax CEO Robert Altman.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2014, 11:33:53 AM
She was also like 1/3 of the voices in Oblivion, roughly, so it isn't like she hasn't done VA for them before.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on January 23, 2014, 12:25:38 PM
She just seems so out of place among all the Brits with distinctive voices. Lynda Carter could call me on my phone right now and I wouldn't have any idea who the fuck she was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 23, 2014, 12:31:47 PM
Lynda was awesome!

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3584773/Wonder%20Woman.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2014, 02:14:00 PM
Scam overstates it. The game isn't for me but it will have fans.

If it was just a $60 price point to play the game, end transmission? Just a bad game and not a scam. I think them releasing this as a sub game in addition to that high price is the scam. They know that sub isn't feasible. They are going to ride this NDA as far as they can with a huge marketing effort to take a big ole box dump on the playing populace in the hopes they can recoup something on this ridiculous budget. And they are going to offer cuts on 6 months of playtime to lock people in before they go to F2P within the year end.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on January 23, 2014, 02:34:16 PM
Lynda Carter's voiced a lot of NPCs in the Elder Scrolls series (Nords and Orcs, mainly) all the way back to Morrowind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on January 23, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
No way I'm going near this until some f13'ers whose opinions I respect weigh in on it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on January 23, 2014, 02:45:08 PM
Considering 95% of f13ers hate 99% of MMOs, odds are you won't ever go anywhere near this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2014, 03:14:37 PM
Scam overstates it. The game isn't for me but it will have fans.

If it was just a $60 price point to play the game, end transmission? Just a bad game and not a scam. I think them releasing this as a sub game in addition to that high price is the scam. They know that sub isn't feasible. They are going to ride this NDA as far as they can with a huge marketing effort to take a big ole box dump on the playing populace in the hopes they can recoup something on this ridiculous budget. And they are going to offer cuts on 6 months of playtime to lock people in before they go to F2P within the year end.

I save 'scam' for things that are actually unethical, or don't deliver what they claim to. This is what it is, but it isn't a scam. There's a lot of content and it's the sort of thing people have paid $15 for in the past. You might not find it a good value, and I don't either in this case, but that doesn't make it a scam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 23, 2014, 03:37:22 PM
Yus. Agree with Ingmar here. From a pure quality point of view I think it will release in a better state than say Age of Conan. That doesn't make it a good game though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 23, 2014, 03:58:43 PM
Even if they know they will have to go f2p eventually trying to milk the early adopters is not a scam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2014, 07:45:24 PM
Even if they know they will have to go f2p eventually trying to milk the early adopters is not a scam.

I disagree, but I can't prove what they know and what they don't. What I think will likely happen is this releases, runs for the year and then goes F2P before Christmas. Beyond that, I think Bethesda is going to have to make a tough call on whether or not it's worth keeping the game alive and shitting all over the IP, or killing it before releasing a real game that TES fans will actually enjoy in the hopes the damage won't be that bad to sales.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 24, 2014, 06:32:01 AM
While that video may look good, from what I've read on other forums the combat handles like shit. Phantom key presses, delayed reactions, floaty movement etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on January 24, 2014, 05:06:38 PM
This is the newest official video, where the Devs show off their PvE group content (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZv9nRfa2Y). Supposedly, this is the best example of PvE in TESO at this point, if they are confident enough to release it with commentary and all and considering the negative buzz already surrounding the game. Well, judge it for yourself...

Does anyone here think that the combat in this video looks fun and interesting?  

14 years of MMOs and I have never ever seen an MMO video of PvE combat make that combat look good. It's like screenshots for an FPS. There's just certain elements of a UX that cannot possibly be communicated outside of a demo.

I'm just commenting on ability of a video to convey "fun" though. Specific to TESO: I don't think much of it. It's a stock implementation of an already tired interpretation of MMOs.  So if you're playing TESO and don't think it's fun, the video wont' change your mind. And if you're not playing TESO and don't think the video puts TESO in a very good light, you're probably not wrong.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 25, 2014, 01:01:45 PM
Go check bout the Korean video for tera that showcases their new class. That's a fun combat video to watch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 29, 2014, 05:29:58 AM
ESO Imperial edition picture leaked to Amazon.  Remember all that devsplaining about how having Imperials as a race wouldn't make sense?  Apparently, earth dollars plug the hole in the lore  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 29, 2014, 06:30:10 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/RSTHnrt.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/4k7am3E.png)


Ring of marriage gives bonus XP... Time to get hooked up!

(Dibs on Lantyssa  :grin:)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 29, 2014, 06:38:33 AM
Race locked behind paywall? It's like all the great advantages* of a F2P game with all the advantages* of a subscription game, combined!



*The ability to spend more money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 29, 2014, 06:50:43 AM
Is that image real?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 29, 2014, 06:53:15 AM
Yes, of course.

https://account.elderscrollsonline.com/store


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on January 29, 2014, 07:04:15 AM
Shrug, they will generate some sales with that.  People love stuff that's "limited."  I expect they'll copy quite a few of the SWTOR cartel market features.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on January 29, 2014, 07:08:58 AM
25€ extra (compared to normal digital edition) for some digital in-game stuff (no sound track or anything like that) seems a bit.. excessive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 29, 2014, 07:15:30 AM
You expect a mount, a pet, some sort of booster and vanity armour but blocking off a whole race, one of the most popular races?  That's a f2p move right out of the gate.  I'm sure in six months when it actually goes f2p there will be an "Imperial Pack" that you can use ElderEmeralds© to buy.

Also, wow Euros really get screwed over by currency conversion.  That same page tells me the Imperial edition that costs you eighty Euros would also cost me eighty Canadian dollars.  That works out to $121.37 in Canadian dollars.  I know there is some VAT in there but still.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 29, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
I missed this the first time around, but the "Explorer's Pack" (which comes with any pre-order of the regular or Imperial edition) gives you the ability to roll any race in any alliance(!)  Say goodbye to identification of enemies in PvP, apparently...

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/preorder


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 29, 2014, 08:39:47 AM
It's not like most of them had unique profiles anyway, so who cares? Attack the guys with red names.

I just bought the imperial edition with a 25% off coupon from GMG myself. And yes, I'm in the betas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 09:01:44 AM
Hey look, scamming people out of more money with lies and day one DLC. Geez, who didn't see this coming?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 09:29:26 AM
I missed this the first time around, but the "Explorer's Pack" (which comes with any pre-order of the regular or Imperial edition) gives you the ability to roll any race in any alliance(!)  Say goodbye to identification of enemies in PvP, apparently...

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/preorder

That is such a desperate money grab, they have to know this is going to bomb horribly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 29, 2014, 09:50:06 AM
Being someone with disposable income who is always a willing dupe for MMO launches, I was going to buy this.  But the "any race any alliance thing" has finally convinced me they KNOW this will bomb and are trying to reel in as many fish as possible. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 29, 2014, 09:57:46 AM
Being someone with disposable income who is always a willing dupe for MMO launches, I was going to buy this.  But the "any race any alliance thing" has finally convinced me they KNOW this will bomb and are trying to reel in as many fish as possible. 
Why? That's a preorder bonus, you don't have to pay for it. It's just a neat little cosmetic thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on January 29, 2014, 10:00:33 AM
I just really can't believe they are making an entire race part of the collector's edition and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  I am a fan of the subscription model for many reasons but I absolutely hate double dipping and if the trend is going to veer towards having to buy content in a game I've already paid for while enjoying a service I've already paid for, then I absolutely want this game to fail and fail hard.  


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 10:37:11 AM
Why? That's a preorder bonus, you don't have to pay for it. It's just a neat little cosmetic thing.

Hiding the most popular race behind paying more, and previously lying to people about it when questioned? No, it's more than just a neat little cosmetic thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 29, 2014, 10:43:34 AM
Why? That's a preorder bonus, you don't have to pay for it. It's just a neat little cosmetic thing.

Hiding the most popular race behind paying more, and previously lying to people about it when questioned? No, it's more than just a neat little cosmetic thing.
The preorder bonus is not Imperials, its any race, any faction which is just a cosmetic thing and does not cost more money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 29, 2014, 11:19:32 AM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 29, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
My reading of it is that you are paying for the ability to join any of the 3 alliances in the game at will. thats a little different than cosmetic.

Besides, I thought the most popular races in the game were the furries. :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 29, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
I did a quick internet search and the couple random forum polls I saw does seem to indicate that the cat and lizard people are surprisingly popular.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 11:48:48 AM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.

It's not cosmetic, each race has unique bonuses.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 29, 2014, 12:04:30 PM
That's true, I should have said largely cosmetic.

Also I think there's some confusion. If you preorder, you can use any race in any faction. They do not charge extra for that, you just need to order before April.

The imperial race comes with the imperial (collector's) edition.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on January 29, 2014, 12:10:48 PM
See that sort of double dipping is so offensive. We are going to charge you a sub fee and we are doing to nickel and dime you


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 12:14:01 PM
See that sort of double dipping is so offensive. We are going to charge you a sub fee and we are doing to nickel and dime you

It's their scam-cash-grab on the sub. Nobody believes that's real in 6 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 29, 2014, 12:33:17 PM
Did the long ass cinematic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIlFMSyIOk0) get posted yet? I'm not sure what the hell happened there but whatever class the elf chick was looked cool.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on January 29, 2014, 12:54:56 PM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.

Well, technically yes. But imagine what big thing being able to roll an Alliance Orc or Horde Gnome in WoW would have been. Especially if it was "Collectors Edition only".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 29, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
I find the race thing fairly obnoxious, especially the imperial thing. Race feels a lot less cosmetic in this game than in most others due to their unique power trees.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 29, 2014, 01:28:50 PM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.

Well, technically yes. But imagine what big thing being able to roll an Alliance Orc or Horde Gnome in WoW would have been. Especially if it was "Collectors Edition only".

A million times this.  One thing wow in the past got right was being able to easily identify pvp opponents by silhouette. In a pvp game it is definitely not cosmetic and since it's a collectors edition thing it will be even worse because instances of faction-switched races will be rare and a pvp advantage to them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 29, 2014, 01:38:36 PM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.

Well, technically yes. But imagine what big thing being able to roll an Alliance Orc or Horde Gnome in WoW would have been. Especially if it was "Collectors Edition only".

A million times this.  One thing wow in the past got right was being able to easily identify pvp opponents by silhouette. In a pvp game it is definitely not cosmetic and since it's a collectors edition thing it will be even worse because instances of faction-switched races will be rare and a pvp advantage to them.

Nah. The identification thing won't really be a big deal in PVP in this game - there are no highly stylized silhouettes like a WoW or TF2, there aren't any tiny gnomes or lurikeens or asura to hide inside terrain features, etc. It's the racial powers that will make the difference, if there's going to be an issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 29, 2014, 02:32:12 PM
Why would you think the imperials are the most popular race?

Again, it's all just cosmetic.

Well, technically yes. But imagine what big thing being able to roll an Alliance Orc or Horde Gnome in WoW would have been. Especially if it was "Collectors Edition only".

A million times this.  One thing wow in the past got right was being able to easily identify pvp opponents by silhouette. In a pvp game it is definitely not cosmetic and since it's a collectors edition thing it will be even worse because instances of faction-switched races will be rare and a pvp advantage to them.

Again, the "any race any alliance" thing is available to ANY preorder of EITHER the imperial or standard edition.  The Imperial race (any alliance) is limited to Imperial Edition only.

I don't think the "any race any alliance" perk means ESO is horrible because it is a money-grabbing move- the bar keeps getting moved on that, and I'm long since numb.  It means ESO is horrible because they need more preorders before the NDA drops.  Once the avalanche of "This is the suxiest MMO ever" starts, nobody would preorder.  

EDIT:  I should add that the ESO website does NOT state that the pre-order bonuses are "exclusive" and will never be offered again.  While the Imperial Edition bonuses are exclusive (editor's note:   :oh_i_see:), they don't even bother to lie about the pre-order bonuses.  I would bet anything that "any race any alliance" will be purchasable by anyone shortly after launch. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 29, 2014, 02:35:23 PM
The NDA won't drop until release day.

But that day will be glorious. I really want Fabricated to post some of his rants.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 29, 2014, 03:05:21 PM
I've seen games from EA that were absolute trash with less day one cash grabs so I'm predicting this will be warhammer level.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 29, 2014, 03:37:36 PM
You know, ok, lore and/or RP in MMOs is useless and whatnot, but first they build this three faction thing with a backstory on the "whys" and "hows" a certain race chose this or that alliance, all based on the single-player canon, nicely presented and all.....And then it goes crumbling right on Day 1 with that offer. As most of you already said, it speaks volumes about their expectations  :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 29, 2014, 04:06:23 PM
So you betrayed your alliance. Maybe your argonian character was banging an elf chick when war broke out. I don't see the major malfunction. Shrug.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on January 29, 2014, 04:13:29 PM
... It means ESO is horrible because they need more preorders before the NDA drops.  Once the avalanche of "This is the suxiest MMO ever" starts, nobody would preorder.  

We here respect the NDA in part because we're old fashioned and would prefer to stay a part of this community. But that's a choice.

In all of our various alter egos, is there anyone here whose been anywhere on the net that has exhibited a large degree of ignorant interest in TESO? I mean of course, beyond the pay for post, the idealists moving to their first ever second MMO or the delusional who think glowing endorsements can get them a gig in the industry?

Because I have not.

I have seen mostly lukewarm interest that will survive only as long as nothing else compelling comes along down to outright mocking. There were people who, rightly or wrongly, were excited by it. But that's long since faded.

All this is to say they could keep the NDA up after launch and it won't matter to sales.

tl;dr: the damage has already been done.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on January 29, 2014, 06:34:26 PM
They should have gone the EQ2 route and had an involved betrayal quest line if anything.  Lore wise, restricted races on factions works for some and not for others, so that can go either way, plus there's always the outliers. I guess it comes down to convenience of playing with friends as what ever race vs. faction pride, lore and tiny racial balance issues. I'll still be an orc in Daggerfall most likely, so eh.

But that Imperial race CE incentive is very off-putting. You can upgrade your account to the Imperial edition at anytime, but at that point you really are then paying for that race solely.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on January 29, 2014, 07:40:54 PM
Ring of marriage gives bonus XP... Time to get hooked up!

(Dibs on Lantyssa  :grin:)

Won't lie, I'd totally love games to steal that idea so I can make Ingmar fake-marry me (again! We were totally fake-married on our MUD back in ancient times) (don't judge me!) and get an XP boost. :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 29, 2014, 09:11:56 PM
... It means ESO is horrible because they need more preorders before the NDA drops.  Once the avalanche of "This is the suxiest MMO ever" starts, nobody would preorder.  

We here respect the NDA in part because we're old fashioned and would prefer to stay a part of this community. But that's a choice.

In all of our various alter egos, is there anyone here whose been anywhere on the net that has exhibited a large degree of ignorant interest in TESO? I mean of course, beyond the pay for post, the idealists moving to their first ever second MMO or the delusional who think glowing endorsements can get them a gig in the industry?

Because I have not.

I have seen mostly lukewarm interest that will survive only as long as nothing else compelling comes along down to outright mocking. There were people who, rightly or wrongly, were excited by it. But that's long since faded.

All this is to say they could keep the NDA up after launch and it won't matter to sales.

tl;dr: the damage has already been done.
Not online, but IRL I know a lot of people who are excited for TESO because "SKYRIM ONLINE ERMAGERD!!!" These guys are mostly console players, not MMO players, so they're just imagining Skyrim with their buddies and not, well, what they're actually gong to get. :nda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 29, 2014, 09:55:47 PM
Also as I've mentioned before, buzz in the in-game channels was quite positive. For some reason.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 29, 2014, 10:40:42 PM
Also as I've mentioned before, buzz in the in-game channels was quite positive. For some reason.

It usually is.  Anyone pointing out flaws or criticizing the game get called out as heretics, though, its not unique to ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on January 29, 2014, 10:47:21 PM
Yea, I experienced that in most closed betas I have played... including FFXIV v1.0  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 30, 2014, 04:01:44 AM
Must suck to work on MMOs, knowing you're probably going to be laid off in 3-9 months after it launches because that's pretty much what happens to every MMO that isn't WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on January 30, 2014, 07:42:09 AM
Working on an MMO is super-exciting at first. After the honeymoon is over, though, it slowly starts sucking your soul dry.  Day by day, it drains you for creativity and motivation, and by the time you're laid off you're a lifeless husk with no faith left in humanity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sky on January 30, 2014, 07:44:54 AM
Also as I've mentioned before, buzz in the in-game channels was quite positive. For some reason.

It usually is.  Anyone pointing out flaws or criticizing the game get called out as heretics, though, its not unique to ESO.
Some people like to get immersed and enjoy the game without hearing negativity. I get it.

Though as someone not in the beta or w/e, I don't see why I'd want to play this game.

Also, Xuri; why would you have any faith in humanity in the first place? Good people are the abnormality in our race. Most people are stupid, selfish and short-sighted. Cherish those few who aren't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 30, 2014, 08:36:42 AM
Because he lives in Norway! ( :heart: )


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 30, 2014, 09:03:38 AM
Yes, Xuri is a sweet innocent Norwegian boy and Sky is a crazy Viking with a big axe. 

 Here is what I see when I think of Sky:

And Xuri:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on January 30, 2014, 09:12:39 AM
Meow?  :hello_kitty_2:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 30, 2014, 09:44:58 AM
This is the end result:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sky on January 30, 2014, 11:30:52 AM


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on January 30, 2014, 11:45:57 AM
Working on an MMO is super-exciting at first. After the honeymoon is over, though, it slowly starts sucking your soul dry.  Day by day, it drains you for creativity and motivation, and by the time you're laid off you're a lifeless husk with no faith left in humanity.

Nothing drains you of the will to contribute creatively like having to redesign a region from scratch three times as content standards change repeatedly. You work on the area for over a year straight, throwing out thousands of man-hours of work and dozens of ideas you loved because they "don't fit" the latest directives, and at the end it's assigned to a completely different team to restart from scratch again. And months later, their work is also thrown out, and the area is back-burnered for "later development."

Not that I'm saying I experienced this at any point in my career. It's just something that happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 30, 2014, 11:49:30 AM
Nothing drains you of the will to contribute creatively like having to redesign a region from scratch three times as content standards change repeatedly. You work on the area for over a year straight, throwing out thousands of man-hours of work and dozens of ideas you loved because they "don't fit" the latest directives, and at the end it's assigned to a completely different team to restart from scratch again. And months later, their work is also thrown out, and the area is back-burnered for "later development."

Not that I'm saying I experienced this at any point in my career. It's just something that happens.

Made me think of this.   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gporNcuC76M)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on January 30, 2014, 10:50:19 PM
So, soul-draining development and crazy viking kittens aside...  :uhrr:

I know a bunch of people who are super-excited about this game, so much so that some of them are talking about buying PCs to play it. They're young (20's), console gamers, and the closest they've ever come to playing an MMO before is multiplayer console gaming.

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.

We're a bunch of jaded, cynical old farts who've beaten the crap out of every MMORPG released in the last 15 years, of course we're going to hate this. But we're not who all the money hats are going to come from with this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 30, 2014, 11:00:46 PM
Tell them to do it and report their progress on a weekly basis when the game goes live.
This isn't gonna surprise anyone when it sucks, but hey let's look at it from the MMO virgins perspectives.
We were like that at some point in our lives.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on January 31, 2014, 01:09:36 AM


We're a bunch of jaded, cynical old farts who've beaten the crap out of every MMORPG released in the last 15 years, of course we're going to hate this.

I look forward to a whole new generation of gamers learning to hate their hobby.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 31, 2014, 01:21:47 AM
So, soul-draining development and crazy viking kittens aside...  :uhrr:

I know a bunch of people who are super-excited about this game, so much so that some of them are talking about buying PCs to play it. They're young (20's), console gamers, and the closest they've ever come to playing an MMO before is multiplayer console gaming.

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.

We're a bunch of jaded, cynical old farts who've beaten the crap out of every MMORPG released in the last 15 years, of course we're going to hate this. But we're not who all the money hats are going to come from with this game.

You know, I didn't put any thoughts into this before but you might be onto something. I am not up to date when it comes to consoles, but I can't think of many "traditional" MMORPGs there outside of Final Fantasy XI/XIV, so this could be the first true shot at it and considering the "new" market and the general quality of the product -and how much it has been thought for consoles from the ground up- this could really be a flop on PC but a resounding success on consoles. And chances are they were aware of this since the beginning.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on January 31, 2014, 04:51:08 AM
Tell them to do it and report their progress on a weekly basis when the game goes live.
This isn't gonna surprise anyone when it sucks, but hey let's look at it from the MMO virgins perspectives.
We were like that at some point in our lives.

Don't worry, I am very intrigued to see how they find it. I'm staying well away from the discussions because I don't want my cynicism to spill out onto them. I have a feeling that some of them are going to love it and will experience that "My first MMO" feeling that we all had once, many years ago.

You know, I didn't put any thoughts into this before but you might be onto something. I am not up to date when it comes to consoles, but I can't think of many "traditional" MMORPGs there outside of Final Fantasy XI/XIV, so this could be the first true shot at it and considering the "new" market and the general quality of the product -and how much it has been thought for consoles from the ground up- this could really be a flop on PC but a resounding success on consoles. And chances are they were aware of this since the beginning.

Well it's also made me think back to the discussions here and in the Wildstar thread about what would be determined as a success for these games. Are they going to topple WoW with it's X million subs and 10 years of development? No, not a chance. However, are they going to make a pile of money from box sales, subs and then F2P transactions? That looks a lot more likely. So if you're making these games, investing in them or selling them then surely that's a success?

We live in a capitalist world, gaming isn't magically exempt from that, there's only one metric that really matters - profit. Quality, critical acclaim, fan adulation, these things are only valuable if they result in profit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 31, 2014, 05:45:59 AM
This is like Blood Bowl Human edition with Unique Apokatieperry Add On Exclusive.  :drillf:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on January 31, 2014, 12:41:06 PM
So, soul-draining development and crazy viking kittens aside...  :uhrr:

I know a bunch of people who are super-excited about this game, so much so that some of them are talking about buying PCs to play it. They're young (20's), console gamers, and the closest they've ever come to playing an MMO before is multiplayer console gaming.

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.

We're a bunch of jaded, cynical old farts who've beaten the crap out of every MMORPG released in the last 15 years, of course we're going to hate this. But we're not who all the money hats are going to come from with this game.

Huh, yea, now that's curious. I had Skyrim as a PC-mostly game with all the modding, and therefore a TESO not-really-Skyrim MMO doomed to not appeal. But neither MMOs nor high (enough) fantasy PC-style RPGs exist to anywhere near the same parallel on consoles. In a way, an untapped market maybe.

So in other words, TESO could be fine as long as you didn't plan Skyrim to the point where you're writing your own mods for it nor MMOs since the EQACUO days.

Doesn't mean it'll be good for that audience either. Just means their baseline could very well TESO for first-MMO instead of WoW (itself being the Wayne's World Bohemian Rhapsody to us veterans, at which point someone chimes in about M59 or Kesmai  :grin:)

Shit though, this means possibly a whole new round of starry-eyed second MMOers. Not sure I have the fortitude to go through a fifth round of that...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 31, 2014, 04:11:38 PM
Unboxing the Imperial Edition, video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiEvH4iC0M).

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on January 31, 2014, 05:05:39 PM
Unboxing the Imperial Edition, video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiEvH4iC0M).

 :why_so_serious:

This made me want to play Skyrim and give the guy in the video a jelly donut with strychnine.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2014, 05:14:40 PM
PLAY AS AN IMPERIAL!
WED YOUR ONLINE GIRLFRIEND WHO MIGHT BE A DUDE!
GIVE HER CRABS!
ENJOY A STATUE OF THE LORD OF RAPE!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on January 31, 2014, 05:24:17 PM
That video reminded me that every single person on the Internet is a man. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on January 31, 2014, 06:14:29 PM
Nah, I've been to Moonguard, everyone is actually a lady playing a gay elf dude.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 01, 2014, 01:50:40 PM
Unboxing the Imperial Edition, video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqiEvH4iC0M).

 :why_so_serious:

Who the fuck is that guy? :ye_gods: :pedobear:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on February 01, 2014, 01:52:27 PM
He started off as a lowly Lore Apprentice but through hard work he climbed to Lore Journeyman.  Eventually he achieved the lofty title of Loremaster, but that wasn't enough for him.  For he wanted to be the best of the best and so he defeated all his rivals and became the Lead Loremaster.  And his reward for all his hard work and sacrifice?  He gets to open The Box!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on February 01, 2014, 06:41:44 PM
Lawrence Schick (http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,2107/). A genuinely, genuinely awesome guy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 01, 2014, 11:02:01 PM
Oh neat, I hadn't heard that he landed at not-Bethesda.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 01, 2014, 11:27:38 PM

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.


That stat shocks me. Not the number of copies but that only 14% were on PC. If any games should be played exclusively on PC it is Bethesday games. The mods are what make those games great, not what it ships with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on February 01, 2014, 11:32:24 PM
Do those stats include digital sales?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 01, 2014, 11:50:24 PM
Almost certainly, although it looks like it probably doesn't include however many they moved over Christmas in the various sales.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on February 02, 2014, 12:23:46 AM
Oh neat, I hadn't heard that he landed at not-Bethesda.

ZOS has some serious old-school RPG talent as ground level content team leads. In addition to Lawrence, Zeb Cook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeb_Cook) and Bill Slavicsek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Slavicsek) are in the design/writing department.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: lamaros on February 02, 2014, 12:59:25 PM

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.


That stat shocks me. Not the number of copies but that only 14% were on PC. If any games should be played exclusively on PC it is Bethesday games. The mods are what make those games great, not what it ships with.

Complete rubbish. Do you know how few of even those PC players will have modded the game?

Players rarely even patch unless its forced upon them.

Skyrim base game is incredible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 02, 2014, 02:07:31 PM
I only have one mod running for Skyrim, it's a inventory sorter.  It keeps me sane.

TESO is going to sell a LOT of boxes, but a few months out it'll be ghost town servers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on February 02, 2014, 02:56:17 PM
I've only modded the Skyrim interface, pretty much, because it was a console interface, so I imagine the console players are peachy with the vanilla game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on February 02, 2014, 04:17:35 PM
I currently have... uh... *cough*over140*cough* mods for Skyrim. At first I was like, yeah, I'm just going to get this one, since it fixes some bugs. Oh, and that one, which fixes some bugs with the mod that fixes bugs. Oh and of course I'll need the other one over there, and I'd be a fool not to include this one, and OOOH this one looks awesome I should try that and Woah I always wantedthatfunctionalityandthisoneisgreatandthatsonecomeshighlyrecommendedandalsothatone... etc -_-


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 02, 2014, 09:42:31 PM

Complete rubbish. Do you know how few of even those PC players will have modded the game?

Players rarely even patch unless its forced upon them.

Skyrim base game is incredible.

What kind of ancient, non-steam world are you living in? It sounds like shitty.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 02, 2014, 11:09:21 PM
I only have a handful of minor mods, mostly little convenience things and bugfixes. Lamaros is right; the base game is a great game in its own right, mods are unnecessary (and a large proportion of them are terrible).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 03, 2014, 08:22:54 AM
A large proportion of them are also pervy as hell. Internet ruins things like that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on February 03, 2014, 10:53:39 AM
I only have a handful of minor mods, mostly little convenience things and bugfixes. Lamaros is right; the base game is a great game in its own right, mods are unnecessary (and a large proportion of them are terrible).

So wrong. All Beth. games of that series - Fallout 3 - F:NV - Skyrim. Have been so enhanced by mods. From simple texture replacers, atmosphere (weather), game content, much needed balance changes (skyrim combat, magic in particular...ugh...)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on February 03, 2014, 11:49:45 AM
Only mod I've ever relied on for a BethSoft game is the No Cliff Racers mod for Morrowind.  I've beaten Fallout 3/NV, Oblivion, and Skyrim without a single mod installed. I just don't feel the need.  I can deal with the interfaces. 

I've tried some of the texture improvements for Morrowind. But then upon loading the game, I realize I've played the shit out of Morrowind and there's better things I can do with my time.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: lamaros on February 03, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
I only have a handful of minor mods, mostly little convenience things and bugfixes. Lamaros is right; the base game is a great game in its own right, mods are unnecessary (and a large proportion of them are terrible).

So wrong. All Beth. games of that series - Fallout 3 - F:NV - Skyrim. Have been so enhanced by mods. From simple texture replacers, atmosphere (weather), game content, much needed balance changes (skyrim combat, magic in particular...ugh...)

Anything can be enhanced by a good mod. That doesn't mean that a) the base game isn't the source of most of the awesomeness, b) the base game isn't fantastic all by itself, and c) that the vast majority of players don't use mods.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 03, 2014, 03:11:07 PM
If you played Daggerfall without increasing your cart size via a mod I don't know what to tell you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 03, 2014, 03:27:45 PM
I felt the last two fallout games were excellent right out of the box, skyrim too.  Sure the mods are nice but the base games were plenty good without well, maybe not the skyrim UI.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 03, 2014, 11:41:00 PM
Looks like its possible the NDA might be lifted on Friday, at least for the press.
http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/02/03/where-is-the-elder-scrolls-online-preview-it-s-coming


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 04, 2014, 08:09:47 AM
What does that mean for the rest of us?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 04, 2014, 08:25:10 AM

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.


That stat shocks me. Not the number of copies but that only 14% were on PC. If any games should be played exclusively on PC it is Bethesday games. The mods are what make those games great, not what it ships with.

Complete rubbish. Do you know how few of even those PC players will have modded the game?

Players rarely even patch unless its forced upon them.

Skyrim base game is incredible.

Arguably Skyrim and the Fallout games are the only Bethesda games that are good out of the box. (yes, I know New Vegas is made by Obsidian but it's on the Bethesda engine). Let's put it this way, many of my friends don't even buy Bethesda games until a few months after release because that's when the mods start coming out. The mod communities for Bethesda games is huge, larger than any other game I know of. If you haven't at least installed SkyUI then you're playing an inferior version of Skyrim. Period.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 04, 2014, 09:28:19 PM
I'm getting this creepy "hmm, I might just play this" vibe from this thread now. Wtf happened?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on February 04, 2014, 09:34:53 PM
Looks like its possible the NDA might be lifted on Friday, at least for the press.
http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/02/03/where-is-the-elder-scrolls-online-preview-it-s-coming

I got an email reminding me there is a NDA in place, and DON'T YOU FORGET IT.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 05, 2014, 12:14:28 AM
I'm getting this creepy "hmm, I might just play this" vibe from this thread now. Wtf happened?

I know that I will play this game (barring something significant happening) but that's just because the guild I like to play with has decided to (officially) play this game.
And that means that I have to actually download the beta for the stress test so I can decide if I really want the physical imperial edition (which I'm actually considering) or if I'll just go with the cheapest option.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 05, 2014, 01:28:11 AM
I'm getting this creepy "hmm, I might just play this" vibe from this thread now. Wtf happened?

Between this and Wildstar I am  :uhrr: :uhrr: :uhrr:'ed to death, but if there's a chance I will play any of the two it will probably be The Elder Scrolls Online. Sorry Ghambit, didn't mean to waste your beta key and I consider myself in debt with you. I really tried, but Wildstar so far is a huuuuge disappointment. This one on the other hand started like such a ridiculous mess I had zero expectations on that now I can almost see a glimpse of future fun with the right group of people and if the threeway PvP will turn out not to be a slide show.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 05, 2014, 02:47:53 AM
Has anyone read or skimmed the NDA?

How strict is it? I.e. can people even say they've got a beta invite for this weekend and are trying to download it despite the launcher repeatedly shitting the bed? Or would that violate said NDA?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 05, 2014, 07:07:16 AM
Breathing violates the NDA. But nobody cares about saying you're in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 05, 2014, 07:33:10 AM
Looks like its possible the NDA might be lifted on Friday, at least for the press.
http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/02/03/where-is-the-elder-scrolls-online-preview-it-s-coming

I actually find that far more creepy than an all-encompassing NDA. They're happy for a professional gaming website to reveal all, but don't want ordinary gamers to put up a video on YouTube? It suggests they fear their actual customers are disappointed in the product - but still feel confident somehow that the professional media will say nice things . . .


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 05, 2014, 07:56:56 AM
Right, well. 500k invites went out for this weekend's event. NDA or not stuff's gonna be leaking all over the place come the weekend.

And, the launcher is a piece of shit. Randomly refuses to start, randomly drops back to 0%, really doesn't like being stopped and resumed. I'm actually doubtful I'll get all 21Gb downloaded before the weekend event starts.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 05, 2014, 08:03:23 AM
I got invited back again. I'm working on Saturday, but I may check it again on Sunday to see if anything has changed.

I want Fabricated to do the same so I can get some laughs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 05, 2014, 08:09:12 AM
I'm in again and this time I'll be able to play, since the test will end on monday evening EST (last one ended on a Sunday). SO excited  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: lamaros on February 05, 2014, 04:46:18 PM

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.


That stat shocks me. Not the number of copies but that only 14% were on PC. If any games should be played exclusively on PC it is Bethesday games. The mods are what make those games great, not what it ships with.

Complete rubbish. Do you know how few of even those PC players will have modded the game?

Players rarely even patch unless its forced upon them.

Skyrim base game is incredible.

Arguably Skyrim and the Fallout games are the only Bethesda games that are good out of the box. (yes, I know New Vegas is made by Obsidian but it's on the Bethesda engine). Let's put it this way, many of my friends don't even buy Bethesda games until a few months after release because that's when the mods start coming out. The mod communities for Bethesda games is huge, larger than any other game I know of. If you haven't at least installed SkyUI then you're playing an inferior version of Skyrim. Period.

What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 05, 2014, 07:21:24 PM
(http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?attachments/7wxnmir-jpg.3196/)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 06, 2014, 02:52:08 AM

Skyrim has sold 20 million copies (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/), only 14% of which were on the PC, so the market for people who've never played WoW, or WAR or SWTOR is huge, many of whom will stump up a full price box cost and then a monthly sub for a few months without hesitation. I suspect TESO might even give a significant boost to Xbox One sales this summer.


That stat shocks me. Not the number of copies but that only 14% were on PC. If any games should be played exclusively on PC it is Bethesday games. The mods are what make those games great, not what it ships with.

Complete rubbish. Do you know how few of even those PC players will have modded the game?

Players rarely even patch unless its forced upon them.

Skyrim base game is incredible.

Arguably Skyrim and the Fallout games are the only Bethesda games that are good out of the box. (yes, I know New Vegas is made by Obsidian but it's on the Bethesda engine). Let's put it this way, many of my friends don't even buy Bethesda games until a few months after release because that's when the mods start coming out. The mod communities for Bethesda games is huge, larger than any other game I know of. If you haven't at least installed SkyUI then you're playing an inferior version of Skyrim. Period.

What does that have to do with what I said? Nothing at all.

Yeah, I never really modded Skyrim all that much, either.  My first few dozen hours or so I used no mods at all and my overall enjoyment of the game wasn't increased that much when I did use mods.  The game is great as is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 06, 2014, 02:58:18 AM
So, I ended up getting the Imperial version.  I did not, however, pay full price.  Greenmangaming had a 20% discount going, plus I used another coupon I had which brought the total to $52, which is $2 more than the regular version.  I knew I was going to play regardless and having played the beta, I know I'll at least get a month or two out of it, maybe more depending on how engaging the later game stuff is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 06, 2014, 08:48:33 AM
So, I ended up getting the Imperial version.  I did not, however, pay full price.  Greenmangaming had a 20% discount going, plus I used another coupon I had which brought the total to $52, which is $2 more than the regular version.  I knew I was going to play regardless and having played the beta, I know I'll at least get a month or two out of it, maybe more depending on how engaging the later game stuff is.

To be fair as much as i've doom casted this game there hasn't been a single mmo so far that i did not enjoy for the free month at least.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 06, 2014, 08:58:04 AM
So, I ended up getting the Imperial version.  I did not, however, pay full price.  Greenmangaming had a 20% discount going, plus I used another coupon I had which brought the total to $52, which is $2 more than the regular version.  I knew I was going to play regardless and having played the beta, I know I'll at least get a month or two out of it, maybe more depending on how engaging the later game stuff is.

To be fair as much as i've doom casted this game there hasn't been a single mmo so far that i did not enjoy for the free month at least.
Same here.  I've played the beta so I know what I'm getting into.  Even though I already paid $50, I'm actually kind of hoping it flops like SWTOR did and follows the same route to a f2p/sub game.  That's the payment model I prefer these days.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on February 06, 2014, 09:13:38 AM
Didn't get one. Also, don't think I signed up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 06, 2014, 09:27:59 AM
Press NDA will be down at 10AM tomorrow morning, but the player NDA remains intact. So basically like Wildstar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 06, 2014, 09:56:28 AM
Of course, because believe me you don't want to hear player opinions. Only the whitewashed payola press stories.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on February 06, 2014, 10:09:38 AM
Do F13 staff count as press? :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 06, 2014, 10:22:26 AM
I assume people with press access were given more nuanced guidelines on what they can and can't talk about, and they follow the rules.

The unwashed masses can't handle nuance. They can barely understand the concept of an NDA that covers everything. Beta forums are full of posts with subjects like "Streaming on twitch fri @ 6PM!" Of those that do understand the NDA, many don't give a sheisse and break it anyway, overwhelmingly because they want to become minicelebrities in their microcommunity of choice by shitting on the game. Beta leaks are rarely positive.

You need a ton of confidence to give up that protection. That's why nobody but blizzard cuts NDA in closed beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 06, 2014, 02:16:55 PM
You need a ton of confidence to give up that protection. That's why nobody but blizzard cuts NDA in closed beta.

It would be interesting to have a broader discussion about NDA in MMOs. In this day and age, with the current and potential playerbase interested in this genre,are they still so important? Or maybe you think that, precisely because of this day and age and this playerbase, you must have them or you risk too much?  Or you see them as a simple, "corporate" step that you have to take on your way to releasing it? (just like in any other field of commerce).

Most of us (meaning, F13) at this point think that NDA kept too much = shitty product under wraps OR, sometimes, excessive lack of confidence.

I mean, let's look at Wildstar and ESO: so, we all know they're not gonna reinvent the wheel; both of them have their particular angle and take on some sub-features. Do they really need to have an NDA to cover the same old stuff?

Are they still stuck with the concept "bad (and public) word of mouth during beta = lower sales"....Maybe the industry have data to prove it?

Yes, the power of the "word of mouth" can be great, but IMO, in this particular market (videogame) and sub-genre (MMO) is not that crucial anymore to justify having an NDA for so long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 06, 2014, 02:30:13 PM
The problem with "industry data" in the video game industry is that games aren't comparable. You can't just assume that not having an NDA hurt sales because you have no idea what sales would have been with or without one. You can compare a game that does to a game that doesn't, but if you are comparing a Blizzard game to one from Curt Schilling, GUESS WHAT? You can't draw conclusions from that.

Companies do it because it's seen as managing a risk, and they LOOOOOOOOVE that shit in this day and age. Even when it hurts them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on February 06, 2014, 03:09:26 PM
Still.  I'm having a hard time understanding how having an NDA or not having one has ever made a difference to the success of a game.  Either the game is good, or it is bad but certainly the NDA hiding it for the longest amount of time possible will only ever benefit a bad game looking to make some money before they are exposed.  NDA's make sense in research and development or in cases where concepts and ideas may be stolen, but in video games, its no more than an outdated tool.  In this case, perception does match reality.  NDA's hide a bad product.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 06, 2014, 03:18:36 PM
I think NDAs for closed betas are fine; you really don't want people telling everyone about systems that are still in flux and going into the game with wrong expectations. HOWEVER, I also think most MMOs need to have a reasonably length open beta to get the polish issues hammered out, with no NDA in place. We wouldn't be wringing our hands over the 'WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???' thing if people did that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 06, 2014, 04:10:29 PM
You'll hear the good things despite an NDA.

The only thing a NDA does is protect a bad product.

If you're not sure what to think about ESO at this exact moment, look at the first line of this post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 06, 2014, 04:19:30 PM
I agree that the only positive effect of a NDA is protecting a poor product, but the reverse is not necessarily true; an NDA does not necessarily mean the product is poor.

Although I can't come up with a counterexample off the top of my head.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 06, 2014, 09:15:35 PM
I think one of the problems with NDA these days is that the lines (if there were any to begin with) between alpha, closed beta and open beta are so blurred. NDA makes sense when the game is in alpha stage but beyond that it's just a hindrance in most cases.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 07, 2014, 01:51:59 AM
(http://i.minus.com/iR8NHj7jlJrjI.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 07, 2014, 03:36:14 AM
le art


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 07, 2014, 07:21:19 AM
Two previews out: PC Gamer and RPS. The latter is definitely harsher than the former (which is not exactly enthusiastic):

http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/previews/the-elder-scrolls-online-hands-on/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/07/hands-on-the-first-few-hours-of-elder-scrolls-online/#more-188471

One more on Eurogamer:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-07-the-elder-scrolls-online-renounces-the-grind

EDIT: a more positive one on Worthplaying:
http://worthplaying.com/article/2014/2/7/previews/91290/

...While it's a mixed bag on Escapist from the various previewers:
Escapist link (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10981-Elder-Scrolls-Online-Beta-Impressions-From-Tamriel?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all)

Finally, on Massively, gaming "journalism" at its best:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/02/07/the-elder-scrolls-online-beta-is-absolutely-nothing-special/

Here's the very beginning of the article:
Quote
I've always had a profound antipathy toward the Elder Scrolls franchise.

[...]
Quote
The point I'm making here is that the franchise is not my jam. But that's part of the reason I wanted to try out The Elder Scrolls Online in the first place.

Alright.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 07, 2014, 08:38:36 AM
Always a pisser when the press can speak freely but the public can't. Sigh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tmon on February 07, 2014, 08:39:20 AM
Couple things from the RPS article that caught my eye.

Talking about cardboard quests and quest givers
Quote
And yes, it’s fair to level lots of these complaints at Skyrim or Oblivion. While each contained some lovely moments, there was an abundance of witless drivel being murmured by bored actors. But the difference was, you could just hop on your horse and ride off up a mountain to watch a sunset, before stumbling on a hidden cave leading to a ruined dungeon packed with marauding skellingtons, where you find a book that tells you about a secret place in a nearby tower… In ESO’s first few hours, you follow the marker to the next quest giver.

The crux of the jist as it were
Quote
Try as I might, I can’t help but see this as all the worst bits of TES games – the dreadful dialogue, the crummy acting, the god-awful inventories (WHY! Why would they deliberately bring that aspect of TES into the MMO world, so you’ve got endless vertical scrolling lists of items, rather than a nice, useful tiled window?), put into an old-fashioned MMO space.

Since they are going with the box + sub model, I wasn't terribly interested anyway but the stuff I've seen since they dropped the press NDA has pretty much sealed the deal for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 07, 2014, 08:44:58 AM
That Rockpapershotgun review is soooo poorly written. I had to stop after 2 paragraphs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on February 07, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
Looks like zenimax paid off mmorpg.com. I watched hundreds of posts get purged from one of their eso articles this morning. All of them banned. Not even any real NDA breaking stuff. Just lots of "this game will be horrible" type stuff. I wonder what the price is for mmorpg.com's integrity. Probably not much since they didn't have much to begin with.  


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 07, 2014, 08:51:51 AM
The PC gamer article is spot on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 07, 2014, 09:41:46 AM
Quote
Try as I might, I can’t help but see this as all the worst bits of TES games – the dreadful dialogue, the crummy acting, the god-awful inventories (WHY! Why would they deliberately bring that aspect of TES into the MMO world, so you’ve got endless vertical scrolling lists of items, rather than a nice, useful tiled window?), put into an old-fashioned MMO space.

No one sentence has ever made me put a game on the do not buy list until now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 07, 2014, 09:56:10 AM
Quote
Try as I might, I can’t help but see this as all the worst bits of TES games – the dreadful dialogue, the crummy acting, the god-awful inventories (WHY! Why would they deliberately bring that aspect of TES into the MMO world, so you’ve got endless vertical scrolling lists of items, rather than a nice, useful tiled window?), put into an old-fashioned MMO space.

No one sentence has ever made me put a game on the do not buy list until now.

Haha holy shit. Not that I was even slightly tempted to buy this, but they are using the console-y inventory?  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 07, 2014, 10:03:06 AM
Quote
Try as I might, I can’t help but see this as all the worst bits of TES games – the dreadful dialogue, the crummy acting, the god-awful inventories (WHY! Why would they deliberately bring that aspect of TES into the MMO world, so you’ve got endless vertical scrolling lists of items, rather than a nice, useful tiled window?), put into an old-fashioned MMO space.

No one sentence has ever made me put a game on the do not buy list until now.

Haha holy shit. Not that I was even slightly tempted to buy this, but they are using the console-y inventory?  :ye_gods:

Probably because they are making console versions of the game (so why bother making something that works when you can blame consoles)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on February 07, 2014, 10:10:47 AM
they are using the console-y inventory?

Wow, that... uh, that's surprising.  :nda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on February 07, 2014, 10:29:03 AM
As I've said before, this game is designed for console players. This should not surprise anyone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 07, 2014, 10:40:16 AM
As I've said before, this game is designed for console players. This should not surprise anyone.

Yes you entitled PC fucks. You need to understand when shit is designed on console, you have no right to have a functional UI for your PC port.
You didn't even make up 20% sales of the box, fuckwads.
Just plug a friggin' XBOX controller, what's so hard about that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 07, 2014, 10:49:09 AM
Or just don't buy it at all and save yourself the headache of realizing you wasted $60 in the first 3 hours of gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 07, 2014, 12:03:30 PM
Game Informer (bold is mine):
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2014/02/07/elder-scrolls-online-preview-first-few-hours.aspx

Quote
The preview opportunities I’ve had to check out The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) over the past year-and-a-half have been largely confined to a single beginner area – Stros M’kai. While visually appealing, the areas and aspects of the game that I explored felt stale and linear to a fault. The combat encounters were bland, as were the abilities I had access to. Today I’m going to talk about a more recent preview opportunity that let me out of the sub-par new player experience and into the actual open world of  The Elder Scrolls Online, into the teen levels and the actual game.
 
Let’s get this out of the way. I think the new player area of Stros M’kai does the game a great disservice by presenting a rather drab introductory experience. I was absolutely delighted to find that this experience rapidly changes as characters move into the world and explore areas such as Daggerfall and beyond. The contrast is a stark one; it’s almost like two different games, and changed my outlook and expectations for this title significantly. This rapid shift occurs for a number of reasons.

Yeah, I mean, in a sub-based MMO, and wth the amount of games you can play nowadays, who cares about first impressions/hours into the game?  :uhrr:

Game Reactor:
http://www.gamereactor.eu/previews/108464/The+Elder+Scrolls+Online+-+Beta+Impressions/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 07, 2014, 12:52:03 PM
I'm kind of amazed that mainstream games press previews matched my considerable apathy for this game for the exact same reasons. It's almost like the game really is as boring as the videos.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 07, 2014, 01:05:20 PM
I just about broke out in hives at the description of the combat system. DO NOT WANT.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on February 07, 2014, 01:10:17 PM
As I've said before, this game is designed for console players. This should not surprise anyone.

Yes you entitled PC fucks. You need to understand when shit is designed on console, you have no right to have a functional UI for your PC port.
You didn't even make up 20% sales of the box, fuckwads.
Just plug a friggin' XBOX controller, what's so hard about that?

Modders to the rescue again! Actually, can that even happen? I know they're supporting addons and the like, but does that fall into the same category as altering inventory management?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 07, 2014, 01:15:40 PM
I'm kind of amazed that mainstream games press previews matched my considerable apathy for this game for the exact same reasons. It's almost like the game really is as boring as the videos.

I'm shocked they weren't paid off before being unmuzzled. It's not far off from what I would have written, but with more examples about combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 07, 2014, 01:23:21 PM
As I've said before, this game is designed for console players. This should not surprise anyone.

Yes you entitled PC fucks. You need to understand when shit is designed on console, you have no right to have a functional UI for your PC port.
You didn't even make up 20% sales of the box, fuckwads.
Just plug a friggin' XBOX controller, what's so hard about that?

Modders to the rescue again! Actually, can that even happen? I know they're supporting addons and the like, but does that fall into the same category as altering inventory management?

"Lovers Lab" would do an AMAZING job with TESO  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 07, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
I still like it. And Game Informer dude touches on a major failing of the game which is the source for a lot of heartburn. Which part is  :nda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 07, 2014, 05:30:25 PM
As I've said before, this game is designed for console players. This should not surprise anyone.

Yes you entitled PC fucks. You need to understand when shit is designed on console, you have no right to have a functional UI for your PC port.
You didn't even make up 20% sales of the box, fuckwads.
Just plug a friggin' XBOX controller, what's so hard about that?

Modders to the rescue again! Actually, can that even happen? I know they're supporting addons and the like, but does that fall into the same category as altering inventory management?

"Lovers Lab" would do an AMAZING job with TESO  :grin:

*glances at his credit card*

Yes. I think it just might.

*licks lips*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 07, 2014, 07:35:59 PM
Just plug a friggin' XBOX controller, what's so hard about that?
No. If I want a console game, I'll go buy a console. PC games aren't (just) about better graphics to me. They're about a control system superior to 3D space. But forget all that. Making a UI that works fine for a PC user isn't that fucking hard. You just need to care. Some games do this better than others.

The PC gamer article is spot on.
This. Completely. But RPS isn't wrong at all either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on February 07, 2014, 07:46:00 PM
Such Genius.  Lift the ban on the press to get out the luke warm reception while still threatening to ban anyone who tries to defend it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 07, 2014, 08:07:28 PM
Not much choice. This is part of a marketing rollout, probably planned six months in advance. There's likely been some nailbiting recently, and maybe some resume polishing in the marketing department...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 07, 2014, 10:15:51 PM
So this is still pretty much "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on February 07, 2014, 11:41:09 PM
and maybe some resume polishing in the marketing department...

They'd be better off faking an entirely new resume and switching careers at this point.
Marketing for this has been a catastrophe, no matter how unimpressive the game may or may not be  :nda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 08, 2014, 02:20:12 AM
I so wish they'd drop the NDA on this for players. Considering it's less than 2 months to launch there's really no point in keeping it up.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 08, 2014, 06:34:38 AM
So this is still pretty much "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".

Yes. But take out "modern day".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 08, 2014, 07:05:35 AM
I so wish they'd drop the NDA on this for players. Considering it's less than 2 months to launch there's really no point in keeping it up.  :oh_i_see:

I've already pointed out the things I wanted to point out. At this point all lifting it would do would be able for us to give details as to why.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 08, 2014, 07:33:27 AM
and maybe some resume polishing in the marketing department...

They'd be better off faking an entirely new resume and switching careers at this point.
Marketing for this has been a catastrophe, no matter how unimpressive the game may or may not be  :nda:

Very fucking much this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 08, 2014, 09:50:55 AM
So this is still pretty much "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".

Yes. But take out "modern day".

By modern, I meant tab targeting and hotbar clicky combat.  Because that's what all the other failed AAA MMOs are doing.  Am I wrong?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MediumHigh on February 08, 2014, 09:56:40 AM
Angry Joe review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q)

It looks like mmo circa last time I played one. Reminds me of chronicles of spellborn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 08, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
Angry Joe review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q)

It looks like mmo circa last time I played one. Reminds me of chronicles of spellborn.

I'm really looking forward to the second part (PVP) of that review since it's what I'm really only interested on finding out more about (and the NDA prevents people whose opinions I actually listen to a bit from saying much about it except some very veiled indications it's actually good)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 08, 2014, 11:12:34 AM
So this is still pretty much "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".

Yes. But take out "modern day".

By modern, I meant tab targeting and hotbar clicky combat.  Because that's what all the other failed AAA MMOs are doing.  Am I wrong?

"Modern" to me is more Secret World, GW2, maybe PS2, a mix of post-WoW combat styles. Everything else is :nda:

Even though I've uninstalled it...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on February 08, 2014, 05:07:01 PM
Angry Joe review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upE802rZl7Q)

It looks like mmo circa last time I played one. Reminds me of chronicles of spellborn.

Actually worth watching or at least putting on and listening to. I'm surprised that it looks that good and the general audio quality seems high. However the world is very empty and lifeless, the combat looks boring as hell, the mobs look boring as hell, the inventory is console shit. High level armor sets looked good but I bet loot diversity is not TESO's strong point. Meanwhile every voice on that video has to get some words in on just how rote the questing is, just the same old bullshit nothing exciting to see here.

There is zero chance the game shown there is worth $60+$15/mo in the current marketplace.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 09, 2014, 12:49:00 AM
So this is still pretty much "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".

Yes. But take out "modern day".

By modern, I meant tab targeting and hotbar clicky combat.  Because that's what all the other failed AAA MMOs are doing.  Am I wrong?

"Modern" to me is more Secret World, GW2, maybe PS2, a mix of post-WoW combat styles. Everything else is :nda:

Even though I've uninstalled it...

Of those, I have only played Secret World.  I enjoy it for it's atmosphere, and yes, the fact that it is somehow different than the others.  Still, at the end of the day, there is a lot of hotbar combat going on, and running around from one quest giver to the next.  I tire of it quickly and will only go back to it once in a while.  Same with SWTOR.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 09, 2014, 02:43:49 AM
Rumor is, open threeway PvP is fun and, quoting, "exactly like DAoC". I am trying to confirm this, but comments don't seem very coherent yet. The buzz seems to be there though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 09, 2014, 05:56:30 AM

Of those, I have only played Secret World.  I enjoy it for it's atmosphere, and yes, the fact that it is somehow different than the others.  Still, at the end of the day, there is a lot of hotbar combat going on, and running around from one quest giver to the next.  I tire of it quickly and will only go back to it once in a while.  Same with SWTOR.

Yea. But for me that's too literal a take. Every MMO I've ever played had hotbars, and all of them save PS1/2 had quest givers. What differentiates old and new to me is the visceral feel.

SW, GW2 and certainly PS2 all had a lot more active combat. This was very different than standing in one spot and hitting autoattack. Granted, we haven't done just that in an MMO since early EQ1 and UO. But just having a dodge ability which wasn't purely stat based changed how combat feels from even WoW. If I recall, DDO had this as well.

Hotbars were also very different. Fewer abilities you used more often, many more than stacked, many which are contextual to the situation, abilities, weapons, and not being locked into just the one thing your class can do. GW2 and SWTOR both have hotbars. But they are the "same" only in that they appeared in the bottom center of the screen :-)

There's some modern trappings that TESO has. The videos have shown dodge, how combat uses Skyrim's manual-swing/cast left right mouse approach, ample voiceovers for immersion and so on. But it all is handled in ways that make accurate your original point "All the things you loved about Skyrim...totally not included here.  But don't worry, we've made up for that by including all the things you didn't like or didn't care about, plus all the usual trappings of a modern day MMO that you probably have grown to hate by now".

Edit: fixed formatting


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 09, 2014, 07:18:15 AM
Yeah, I'll concede that even SW improves the visceral feel somewhat, but not enough for me to get too excited about for more than just a few minutes.  To be honest, though, I want full on FPS controls.  Hell, I would take Skyrim combat exactly as it was, for that matter.  It wasn't great, but it was still more visceral than any MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 09, 2014, 08:36:26 AM
Yeah, I'll concede that even SW improves the visceral feel somewhat, but not enough for me to get too excited about for more than just a few minutes.  To be honest, though, I want full on FPS controls.  Hell, I would take Skyrim combat exactly as it was, for that matter.  It wasn't great, but it was still more visceral than any MMO.

But that would mean going against the standard MMO trope of having a bajillion abilities all determined by your class.  To think they would use skyrims combat model of two hands and activating whatever was in each hand with the click of a button.  Why, that system has been proven an abject failure as all games using it have tanked horribly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 09, 2014, 10:06:39 AM
How is activating something in each hand with the click of a button any different then clicking a button to activate something?   :headscratch:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 09, 2014, 11:10:15 AM
Skyrim vs WoW. In Skryim you click left or right and it does something on click against whatever you have under the target reticle. This means that thing can move out of the way, you can lead your moving targeting, you can move while casting, etc. In WoW you (mostly) have some target selected, you click a button, and whether the ability works or not is left to stat calculations.

I suspect you know this too :-) It feels different because it emphasizes different things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 09, 2014, 12:53:59 PM
How is activating something in each hand with the click of a button any different then clicking a button to activate something?   :headscratch:

Not sure if trolling.....


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 09, 2014, 01:20:15 PM
No, he was compare/contrasting the input effort rather then the output.  The former is not really the point of his argument.
Where am I going with this?  There are countless 'button-masher' action-y games that are orders of magnitude more whack-a-mole then even the most diku of dikus.  Similarly, by the 3rd act the player has grown weary of the system.

For me, I'm more concerned with depth of input rather than flashy output.  Choice supercedes feel, because feel tends to wear thin quicker then depth.  Good games can combine the two well enough to give meaning to each button-press.

It's evident in TESO (judging by the vids) because people just starting out aren't given much choice; both mechanically and thematically.  You find the action macro (within the confines of a gamepad); rinse, wash, repeat.  And the mob animations are exactly the same as a game such as Wildstar, only minus the ground indicators.  In TESO I may block (if I've got a shield) or dodge, like in Wildstar.  Or maybe in Wildstar I push a shield button or portal, etc.

It's all the same shit.  Both games also have turn-based dicerolls btw; just one feels more real-time because it's more mouse-reliant then the other and reaction is seemingly more a factor.  Note, I say seemingly because animators are great at hiding a gameturn inside of an overly long animation... wherein your turn has already been taken the moment you pushed-the-button.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on February 09, 2014, 02:10:12 PM
To be honest, though, I want full on FPS controls.  Hell, I would take Skyrim combat exactly as it was, for that matter.  It wasn't great, but it was still more visceral than any MMO.

That's where I felt the genre was headed with GW2, NWN, TERA, Defiance, PS2, and probably some things I've forgotten.

My personal worry is that this trend will eventually shut me - and many other traditional MMG players - out. I'm not good at shooters. I enjoy them, but I've never have had great reflexes, and I'm getting old. I can handle M&B and Skyrim because they're single player, and if I can't get around a problem through reload attrition, I can always adjust the difficulty by metagame actions. But I had to quit Defiance after a month because of a content-locking boss fight I couldn't beat.

I suspect we may end up in a world where MMGs split in two; action games that are essentially massive shooters for the achievers and killers, and sandboxes that still have some iteration of round-based push-button combat for the explorers and socializers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 09, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
It's all the same shit.  Both games also have turn-based dicerolls btw; just one feels more real-time because it's more mouse-reliant then the other and reaction is seemingly more a factor.  Note, I say seemingly because animators are great at hiding a gameturn inside of an overly long animation... wherein your turn has already been taken the moment you pushed-the-button.

All true. And? By that definition, Battlefield is the same as Skyrim. I mean, it's all just layers of obfuscation between button press, context-based calculation, affect and feedback right?

The feel is important. The feel of more recent MMOs differs from earlier ones almost entirely by that feel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on February 09, 2014, 03:01:27 PM
To be honest, though, I want full on FPS controls.  Hell, I would take Skyrim combat exactly as it was, for that matter.  It wasn't great, but it was still more visceral than any MMO.

That's where I felt the genre was headed with GW2, NWN, TERA, Defiance, PS2, and probably some things I've forgotten.

My personal worry is that this trend will eventually shut me - and many other traditional MMG players - out. I'm not good at shooters. I enjoy them, but I've never have had great reflexes, and I'm getting old. I can handle M&B and Skyrim because they're single player, and if I can't get around a problem through reload attrition, I can always adjust the difficulty by metagame actions. But I had to quit Defiance after a month because of a content-locking boss fight I couldn't beat.

I suspect we may end up in a world where MMGs split in two; action games that are essentially massive shooters for the achievers and killers, and sandboxes that still have some iteration of round-based push-button combat for the explorers and socializers.

I've yet to encounter an Action based MMORPG that I would describe as "twitch" no matter if you have to aim or not.  In Tera you almost had to face away from something not to hit it.  I think the bigger trend is the way Wildstar is going where there are big red and blue tells all over everything so there is little doubt what you are aimed at, and what's aimed at you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 09, 2014, 03:29:52 PM
I've yet to encounter an Action based MMORPG that I would describe as "twitch" no matter if you have to aim or not.  In Tera you almost had to face away from something not to hit it.
It will depend on the class and its skillset -- a melee class with aoe moves at melee range will indeed have no problem hitting things, but that's quite expected. In contrast when I play archer in Tera I can miss literally 9 shots out of 10 trying to hit people in battlegrounds. The hitboxes are character sized (a bit bigger for small races to level the field) and it is very easy to fire at empty air.

As far as locking out players due to twitch goes, I could see these games borrow further from the action games as time goes, and introduce difficulty levels, with the lower ones giving more leeway in how good you need to be at the twitch part. Heck, they are already half way there with the 'normal' and 'hard/epeenic' versions of instances and such.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 09, 2014, 04:27:46 PM
It's all the same shit.  Both games also have turn-based dicerolls btw; just one feels more real-time because it's more mouse-reliant then the other and reaction is seemingly more a factor.  Note, I say seemingly because animators are great at hiding a gameturn inside of an overly long animation... wherein your turn has already been taken the moment you pushed-the-button.

All true. And? By that definition, Battlefield is the same as Skyrim. I mean, it's all just layers of obfuscation between button press, context-based calculation, affect and feedback right?

The feel is important. The feel of more recent MMOs differs from earlier ones almost entirely by that feel.

Battlefield is a reticule-based, hitbox, collision-detected FPS with physics and a healthy dose of RTR.  Almost a totally different animal, but I see somewhat your point.
If TESO had collision detection, the animations were more like Chivalry, and there weren't dicerolls - then one could say it's different then your standard Diku.  Then we'd be talkin M&B MMO.   :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 09, 2014, 11:36:02 PM
I won't bother quoting any specific post, but will simply rebut that the input can be EVERYTHING in terms of the visceral feel of combat.  In Skyrim, you don't really have to deal with cooldowns in the same way as with an MMO.  You spray fire until your mana pool is depleted.  You can use both hands and drain at twice the speed.  You can outfit yourself so that your mana usage and regen is insane, at the expense of having any physical protection, if you so choose.  Holy hell, I bet 9 people out of 10 used the first person viewpoint when playing Skyrim, because that's what the removal of tabbing, hotbars and cooldowns does for the action. 

Here is what it boils down to:  Just the simple act of shooting fireballs out of your hands in Skyrim is more fun than the combat action of any MMO I can think of.  That TESO goes away from that to any degree is pants-on-head retarded and the first nail in the coffin.  And that's without even bring melee and ranged combat into the discussion.

That is just the combat.  The sandboxy world and the freedom to do whatever the shit you want?  I am sure that is totally and utterly gone in every way that anyone gives a shit about.  And the graphics...Skyrim graphics are transcendent, if you have any kind of rig to pull them off.  I would actually play for stretches where I would refuse to fast travel, just because it was such an amazing experience to wander the landscape.  I have feeling TESO will offering nothing like that.

This game probably represents the biggest missed opportunity I can think of.  They can always reboot and retry, for example, another Star Wars MMO.  But they had one shot at Skyrim Online, and they struck the fuck out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 10, 2014, 08:00:53 AM
The sad part is they were never trying for Skyrim Online. They realized a bit too late that just going for WoW with an Elder Scroll skin wasn't going to work, and they overhauled their combat per press release.

Comments on the result are still  :nda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Megrim on February 10, 2014, 04:13:42 PM
I won't bother quoting any specific post, but will simply rebut that the input can be EVERYTHING in terms of the visceral feel of combat.  In Skyrim, you don't really have to deal with cooldowns in the same way as with an MMO.  You spray fire until your mana pool is depleted.  You can use both hands and drain at twice the speed.  You can outfit yourself so that your mana usage and regen is insane, at the expense of having any physical protection, if you so choose.  Holy hell, I bet 9 people out of 10 used the first person viewpoint when playing Skyrim, because that's what the removal of tabbing, hotbars and cooldowns does for the action.  

Here is what it boils down to:  Just the simple act of shooting fireballs out of your hands in Skyrim is more fun than the combat action of any MMO I can think of.  That TESO goes away from that to any degree is pants-on-head retarded and the first nail in the coffin.  And that's without even bring melee and ranged combat into the discussion.

That is just the combat.  The sandboxy world and the freedom to do whatever the shit you want?  I am sure that is totally and utterly gone in every way that anyone gives a shit about.  And the graphics...Skyrim graphics are transcendent, if you have any kind of rig to pull them off.  I would actually play for stretches where I would refuse to fast travel, just because it was such an amazing experience to wander the landscape.  I have feeling TESO will offering nothing like that.

This game probably represents the biggest missed opportunity I can think of.  They can always reboot and retry, for example, another Star Wars MMO.  But they had one shot at Skyrim Online, and they struck the fuck out.

What they needed to do was to just a Starbound-eque version of Elder Scrolls for multiple people. Create an ok single-player game that becomes a very good multi-player game when hosted on dedicated servers for 20-30 or so people. Wee, hard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on February 10, 2014, 04:39:53 PM
It's hard to charge sub fees or sell MTX stuff for Coop Skyrim, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 10, 2014, 04:43:58 PM
I won't bother quoting any specific post, but will simply rebut that the input can be EVERYTHING in terms of the visceral feel of combat.  In Skyrim, you don't really have to deal with cooldowns in the same way as with an MMO.  You spray fire until your mana pool is depleted.  You can use both hands and drain at twice the speed.  You can outfit yourself so that your mana usage and regen is insane, at the expense of having any physical protection, if you so choose.  Holy hell, I bet 9 people out of 10 used the first person viewpoint when playing Skyrim, because that's what the removal of tabbing, hotbars and cooldowns does for the action.  

Here is what it boils down to:  Just the simple act of shooting fireballs out of your hands in Skyrim is more fun than the combat action of any MMO I can think of.  That TESO goes away from that to any degree is pants-on-head retarded and the first nail in the coffin.  And that's without even bring melee and ranged combat into the discussion.

That is just the combat.  The sandboxy world and the freedom to do whatever the shit you want?  I am sure that is totally and utterly gone in every way that anyone gives a shit about.  And the graphics...Skyrim graphics are transcendent, if you have any kind of rig to pull them off.  I would actually play for stretches where I would refuse to fast travel, just because it was such an amazing experience to wander the landscape.  I have feeling TESO will offering nothing like that.

This game probably represents the biggest missed opportunity I can think of.  They can always reboot and retry, for example, another Star Wars MMO.  But they had one shot at Skyrim Online, and they struck the fuck out.

What they needed to do was to just a Starbound-eque version of Elder Scrolls for multiple people. Create an ok single-player game that becomes a very good multi-player game when hosted on dedicated servers for 20-30 or so people. Wee, hard.

They might be working on such a thing now, who knows? This train was probably too far down the track before Skyrim came out and became Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on February 10, 2014, 06:00:15 PM
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to keep in mind that this started development before even Fallout 3 came out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2014, 09:56:48 PM
I won't bother quoting any specific post, but will simply rebut that the input can be EVERYTHING in terms of the visceral feel of combat.  In Skyrim, you don't really have to deal with cooldowns in the same way as with an MMO.  You spray fire until your mana pool is depleted.  You can use both hands and drain at twice the speed.  You can outfit yourself so that your mana usage and regen is insane, at the expense of having any physical protection, if you so choose.  Holy hell, I bet 9 people out of 10 used the first person viewpoint when playing Skyrim, because that's what the removal of tabbing, hotbars and cooldowns does for the action.  

Here is what it boils down to:  Just the simple act of shooting fireballs out of your hands in Skyrim is more fun than the combat action of any MMO I can think of.  That TESO goes away from that to any degree is pants-on-head retarded and the first nail in the coffin.  And that's without even bring melee and ranged combat into the discussion.

That is just the combat.  The sandboxy world and the freedom to do whatever the shit you want?  I am sure that is totally and utterly gone in every way that anyone gives a shit about.  And the graphics...Skyrim graphics are transcendent, if you have any kind of rig to pull them off.  I would actually play for stretches where I would refuse to fast travel, just because it was such an amazing experience to wander the landscape.  I have feeling TESO will offering nothing like that.

This game probably represents the biggest missed opportunity I can think of.  They can always reboot and retry, for example, another Star Wars MMO.  But they had one shot at Skyrim Online, and they struck the fuck out.

What they needed to do was to just a Starbound-eque version of Elder Scrolls for multiple people. Create an ok single-player game that becomes a very good multi-player game when hosted on dedicated servers for 20-30 or so people. Wee, hard.

They might be working on such a thing now, who knows? This train was probably too far down the track before Skyrim came out and became Skyrim.

This is more or less exactly what I think they should do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 10, 2014, 10:06:52 PM
Holy hell, I bet 9 people out of 10 used the first person viewpoint when playing Skyrim, because that's what the removal of tabbing, hotbars and cooldowns does for the action.
I bet 9 out of 10 people play it in first person because the character animations are Bethesda-level shit and just too painful to look at.

That one person who doesn't is the guy who modded his game and wants to stare at the naked ass cheeks in all their custom texture glory.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2014, 10:24:02 PM
Personally, I always prefer first person if the combat allows it.  It is naturally more visceral, even if there are some inherent disadvantages. 

Also, I don't feel like giving them a pass for the product they deliver because of their ridiculously long development cycles.  That's just insane.  We're always going to be doomed to get whatever was popular 7 years ago.  This is what happens when you get big mega corporations developing games.  They probably could have made Skyrim Co-op/Multiplayer in half a year and it would have eaten TESO's lunch.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 10, 2014, 11:06:39 PM
The reason to play it in first person isn't the animations, its that that stupid off-to-the-left-uncentered figure thing is completely obnoxious. I'd play in 3rd person if it was centered. I want to see my character.

They probably could have made Skyrim Co-op/Multiplayer in half a year

I really, really doubt that. They'd need to build netcode/server stuff from scratch, figure out how to deal with time passing for multiple people on fast travel, and about a billion other things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 11, 2014, 01:32:57 AM
I was exaggerating, of course.  But it would have been easier than this shit.

Aren't you one of those people that still thinks Diku combat is fun?  Like in SWTOR?  I don't mean that as a jab, just trying to put your comment in context.  Because I am tired as shit of it. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 11, 2014, 02:58:21 AM
It really annoys me that selected people regarded as media can talk about the game but those of you who have been in beta aren't allowed to talk about it. I'm speaking as someone who hasn't been in beta and would like to know what's up with the game other than generally being bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 11, 2014, 03:54:49 AM
I don't get the impression that it's bad, just that it's incredibly meh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 11, 2014, 03:57:48 AM
It really annoys me that selected people regarded as media can talk about the game but those of you who have been in beta aren't allowed to talk about it. I'm speaking as someone who hasn't been in beta and would like to know what's up with the game other than generally being bad.

Well, talking again about NDA, for example here's a snippet from Wildstar's latest stress test e-mail invite (bold is mine):

Quote
Again, this event is under NDA. That means that you aren’t permitted to talk about your experiences. We love to be able to trust people, but we're not quite ready to pull the curtain away just yet.

See? They don't trust us!!  :uhrr:  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on February 11, 2014, 07:19:49 AM
The reason to play it in first person isn't the animations, its that that stupid off-to-the-left-uncentered figure thing is completely obnoxious. I'd play in 3rd person if it was centered. I want to see my character.
This. Dodging AoEs in first person is difficult, but an uncentered third-person is unplayable for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 11, 2014, 09:48:20 AM
I like first person because I'm playing as me, not a rendered version of me I see on the screen. It's an immersion thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on February 11, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
I don't get the impression that it's bad, just that it's incredibly meh.

meh is bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 11, 2014, 10:41:42 AM
I like first person because I'm playing as me, not a rendered version of me I see on the screen. It's an immersion thing.

Great in single player games where you are the only one affected by your choice to play in first person.  Not-so-fun when you're unable to react to your opponents well in a multiplayer situation. 

I really enjoy first person, but it's only going to work in an MMO if EVERYONE has only first person as an option. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 11, 2014, 11:09:21 AM
I was exaggerating, of course.  But it would have been easier than this shit.

Aren't you one of those people that still thinks Diku combat is fun?  Like in SWTOR?  I don't mean that as a jab, just trying to put your comment in context.  Because I am tired as shit of it. 

I do prefer it, although neither of my comments was about the combat so I am not sure how it ties in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on February 11, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
I like first person because I'm playing as me, not a rendered version of me I see on the screen. It's an immersion thing.

See, for me, first person view actually takes me out of it, because it's not ... right? It's like the uncanny valley of vision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 11, 2014, 04:45:46 PM
For me first person tends to break the immersion because it's too claustrophobic and confined compared to regular awareness of my surroundings. Probably good if I wanted to feel like I'm wearing medieval helmet, but since I'd rather be caught dead than wearing one in most games, well :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on February 11, 2014, 05:10:25 PM
Yeah exactly, it's like I'm wearing blinders or something. And yeah, I generally reject helmets too.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 11, 2014, 05:54:52 PM
Yea totally. For me it's just about the peripheral vision. But the 3rd person camera needs to work. I couldn't use it in Skyrim because it felt so off (well, because it was off... center, as ya'all mentioned). So I sucked it up and took the blinders approach.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 11, 2014, 11:17:26 PM
If you were in the beta then take the time to fill out the questionnaire about it. It's long & missing many crucial questions, but they're never going to make these things any better unless we tell them why they suck.

3rd person/1st person needs to be a choice, and you need to have choices within that too - camera position, distance and following options in 3rd person, FOV & head bob options in 1st person.

Why does every single game feel the need to completely reinvent the fucking wheel every single time?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 11, 2014, 11:29:34 PM
Oh, I've written long screeds about the camera options each time I've had the chance, have no fear.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 12, 2014, 10:00:55 AM
For me, one of the reasons most MMO's haven't felt as immersive as EQ1 is the lack of a 1st person mode that didn't suck. DAoC had one - but it lacked arms and weapon swings. As someone who played a lot of melee characters then, that was unworkable. I needed to know when my abilities hit and when I had auto attacks go off and not having arms just killed that for me. So I've played in 3rd person on all of the subsequent MMO's because that really was the only way to play. Skyrim's 3rd person view SUCKED SO HARD, but it's 1st person view was great to me - because it showed my weapons. I don't care if the perspective is a bit off and I'd like some peripheral vision but yeah, 1st person really is better for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 12, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
they're never going to make these things any better unless we tell them why they suck.

F13's new motto?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on February 12, 2014, 12:04:13 PM
... but they're never going to make these things any better unless we tell them why they suck quit giving them money for subpar experiences.


Corrected.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on February 12, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
... but they're never going to make these things any better unless we tell them why they suck quit giving them money for subpar experiences.


Corrected.

Corrected.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 12, 2014, 02:37:34 PM
If you were in the beta then take the time to fill out the questionnaire about it. It's long & missing many crucial questions, but they're never going to make these things any better unless we tell them why they suck.

Their questionnaire is not about the game. Far too late for any of that. MMOs take way too long to develop to rely on near-launch insights.

Instead, if the survey is going to impact anything, it'll affect they market it (which they really truly need help on) and what the business people reference for their internal damage control conversations. Some people will use the data to score political points. Others will use it to try and figure out the best venn overlap between people who are aware of MMOs, people who are aware of Skyrim, and people who've played neither long enough to have strong impressions about how both work. Or basically the traditionally marketing target.

Because with the resounding "meh" of this experience, and the high cost of entry which shows no faith in long haul player commitments, the vaguely curious impressionable ignorants with a tax refund are their best hope.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 12, 2014, 10:47:42 PM
the vaguely curious impressionable ignorants with a tax refund are their best hope.

Haha good line, I like it :)

I think you're right about the questionnaire being about marketing now that I think about it. The first question was "Do you consider yourself an MMORPG fan or an Elder Scrolls fan?".

I nearly wrote that as "The first quest"...  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 13, 2014, 09:58:09 AM
I know I should mind my own business, but if you are in Europe and considering getting this, you might as well waste less money pay less and get it here for a very low price (30 euros) (https://www.g2a.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-cd-key-preorder-eu.html) with 3 days early access and the "any race anywhere" preorder perk.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 13, 2014, 10:01:24 AM
People won't stop making shitty games if other people keep paying for the privilege of being disappointed. Stop being part of the problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 13, 2014, 10:35:24 AM
Maybe people shouldn't expect games to change their life.  I have never not enjoyed an MMO for at least the free month, it simply has not happened yet.  Getting a month of fun out of the box price continues to be a pretty good investment and i see no reason to stop, certainly not because depriving myself might at some point in the future lead to a game that sucks my dick while i play it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2014, 10:37:21 AM
Maybe people shouldn't expect games to change their life.  I have never not enjoyed an MMO for at least the free month, it simply has not happened yet.  Getting a month of fun out of the box price continues to be a pretty good investment and i see no reason to stop, certainly not because depriving myself might at some point in the future lead to a game that sucks my dick while i play it.

Have to agree.  I tend to buy every AAA MMO and play it for the free month.  So far, I haven't felt like I was cheated out of my money... ok... Horizons may be the exception.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 13, 2014, 10:55:38 AM
Your tolerance for putting up with the initial play is well known though.  There's plenty of AAA games I wouldn't have gotten more than a few days out of, if that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 13, 2014, 11:03:02 AM
People won't stop making shitty games if other people keep paying for the privilege of being disappointed. Stop being part of the problem.

People should admit they actually like the things they might otherwise feel they need to bitch about. THAT is a road to happiness  :oh_i_see:

Conviction alone is nothing without action.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 13, 2014, 11:10:51 AM
Maybe people shouldn't expect games to change their life.  I have never not enjoyed an MMO for at least the free month, it simply has not happened yet.  Getting a month of fun out of the box price continues to be a pretty good investment and i see no reason to stop, certainly not because depriving myself might at some point in the future lead to a game that sucks my dick while i play it.

Have to agree.  I tend to buy every AAA MMO and play it for the free month.  So far, I haven't felt like I was cheated out of my money... ok... Horizons may be the exception.

If that is your bag, fine- you are a and adult and can do whatever you want with your money. I just dismay that so many people keep chasing the new game dragon and throwing money at terrible products that the industry never learns.  There are dozens of f2p or cheap alternatives to eating a $60 box sale and $15/month subscription out there- I wish people would give the other games a chance. Let this revenue model die with WoW, or force them to make a game worth that much money. Just because it is shiny and new doesn't mean it is worth a shit, but these assholes know there is a certain percentage of people who MUST play the first day/week and just rape them. I am asking everyone to do their part to lower this percentage. Make this sort of cynical release impossible to maintain.

I have not seen even one rave review for this. Everything is meh to haha holy shit this is bad. Why are there so many of you willing to pay for mediocrity?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
If that is your bag, fine- you are a and adult and can do whatever you want with your money. I just dismay that so many people keep chasing the new game dragon and throwing money at terrible products that the industry never learns.  There are dozens of f2p or cheap alternatives to eating a $60 box sale and $15/month subscription out there-

Most of my enjoyment in MMOs comes from the initial surge and arms race that can only be found in newly released multiplayer games.  There really aren't many F2P alternatives for this out there.   Believe me, I'm always looking for new things to try.  I'm just not a console/SPG fan beyond a few specialized niche sims.

I've come to recognize that this is why I stuck with DAoC for as long as I did.  New realms, new servers, population shifts, new server rule sets, etc.  I always had an arms race to chase.  ATitD really struck this chord for me as well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 13, 2014, 11:29:54 AM
Speaking of DAoC, is this open PvP and siege video DAoC-y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0t-ZH_lZZY) enough in your opinion? Or too GuildWars2-y?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2014, 11:35:08 AM
Speaking of DAoC, is this open PvP and siege video DAoC-y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0t-ZH_lZZY) enough in your opinion? Or too GuildWars2-y?

Have to confess that it did have a DAoC vibe to it.   I'm not happy to see stealth in PvP though.  Initiative is just too hard to balance properly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 13, 2014, 11:43:10 AM
Having destinations visible on the compass at the top of the screen totally ruins the 'Caer Berkstead/Boldiam/Benowyc' confusion comedy drama factor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2014, 11:46:06 AM
Having destinations visible on the compass at the top of the screen totally ruins the 'Caer Berkstead/Boldiam/Benowyc' confusion comedy drama factor.

Makes it easier to herd the lemmings though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 13, 2014, 03:45:50 PM
Speaking of DAoC, is this open PvP and siege video DAoC-y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0t-ZH_lZZY) enough in your opinion? Or too GuildWars2-y?

Have to confess that it did have a DAoC vibe to it.   I'm not happy to see stealth in PvP though.  Initiative is just too hard to balance properly.

Everyone has stealth, but it's not complete invisibility like in other games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 14, 2014, 03:35:44 AM
Playing this made me want to play Skyrim again.

Now I'm playing that. It's quite good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 14, 2014, 09:56:29 AM
If we were allowed to give the unvarnished truth with no NDA, I have no idea what you'd be thinking if you still bought this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Aza on February 15, 2014, 07:45:52 AM
Some pretty good quick-vid overviews of parts of the game.

Crafting (You can do every craft and gathering skill - at all times)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yLYZmHuZ8o

Public Dungeons (looks made for on-the-spot pugs and for solo high challenge)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IBSQAQ8X-E

PvP (Siege combat, Mostly after DAOC, WvW style, maybe not quite as gimp as GW2) from Angry Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 15, 2014, 07:58:57 AM
I don't know about DAoC, but the PvP siege looks EXACTLY like Guild Wars 2. For good or bad, you could switch videos and screenshots and I couldn't tell which one is which.

EDIT: To expand a little, culling problems aside I was really happy with GW2 WvW. Absolutely massive battles fought to the last man/woman, I had epic conquests and defenses that I will remember for a long long time. It was great, really, but after it became too mechanical after a while as there was no sense of community and no metagame since what was an awesome idea (servers fighting each other) got mauled by a: server hopping and b: unnamed enemies.

If TESO can manage to support these huge siege battles with some "meta-meaning" to make it interesting for different groups, and individuals, to acknowledge and fight each other, then this could probably be a winner (for that niche interested in faction based open world PvP games).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 15, 2014, 08:15:34 AM
NDA is finally lifted for the general public. Lets post those screeds, guys!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2014, 08:25:17 AM
NDA is finally lifted for the general public. Lets post those screeds, guys!

You have a link for that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 15, 2014, 08:41:39 AM
http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/15/the-beta-nda-has-lifted


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 15, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
Includes some UI elements we got used to in Skyrim. Includes all the MMO tropes you'd expect.

Includes none of the things we liked about Skyrim. The MMO tropes included are late 2000s era.

I didn't bother with PvP. That's possibly its biggest draw. But it'll likely be a slice of the relatively small userbase they'll be able to retain after the first month, possibly DAoC-sized, maybe smaller.

In brief, I think of this as EQ2 vs WoW again, though TESO vs Wildstar.

Edit: I will say I gave this about 3 hours. Tops. It was just so painfully generic. Possible successes could derive from:

  • Someone who really REALLY hopes for the DAoC style RvR and is willing to grind it out to get there
  • Someone who REALLY gets into the ES lore and has a high threshold for boring combat
  • Someone who is on their second MMO with associated starry-eyed hopes. Queue tears next month.
  • Someone who is attracted to this as their very first MMO with the attendant "wow cool other people" first time experience. Queue tears and private longing glances at Wildstar in 2-3 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 15, 2014, 09:08:35 AM
Horrible slog, tried playing several weekends never managed to make it past level 4-5 cept once.  The newbie experience is the most boring drudgery you can think of, combat feels terrible.  The class/weapon/armor/world skill system actually has a lot of potential and seems like a lot of fun to play with.  Once you hit level 10, if you manage to stand the game that long, you can go pvp and you start thinking that maybe there might be something to this after all.  Everyone whos tried it, even those with very low opinions of the game has enjoyed it.  Not worth a box price and a sub, pvp and character building are good, rest of the game including the most important part (combat) is utter shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 15, 2014, 09:26:18 AM
Includes some UI elements we got used to in Skyrim. Includes all the MMO tropes you'd expect.

Includes none of the things we liked about Skyrim. The MMO tropes included are late 2000s era.

I didn't bother with PvP. That's possibly its biggest draw. But it'll likely be a slice of the relatively small userbase they'll be able to retain after the first month, possibly DAoC-sized, maybe smaller.

In brief, I think of this as EQ2 vs WoW again, though TESO vs Wildstar.

Edit: I will say I gave this about 3 hours. Tops. It was just so painfully generic. Possible successes could derive from:

  • Someone who really REALLY hopes for the DAoC style RvR and is willing to grind it out to get there
  • Someone who REALLY gets into the ES lore and has a high threshold for boring combat
  • Someone who is on their second MMO with associated starry-eyed hopes. Queue tears next month.
  • Someone who is attracted to this as their very first MMO with the attendant "wow cool other people" first time experience. Queue tears and private longing glances at Wildstar in 2-3 months.

I agree with everything you said. One additional note, is that I feel exactly the same way about Wildstar. These games (both) will have a moderate success among those who can still stomach the same game we've been playing for 15 years as long as it has a new skin and tiny bit of combat improvements -and that is fine!-, but it this is just the n-th example of a new MMORPG coming out that makes me feel as exhausted and bored after 5 levels as if I'd played it daily for the past 6 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 15, 2014, 09:30:38 AM
I was more disappointed with wildstar than with this if that counts for something.  It probably had to do with higher expectations though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 15, 2014, 09:38:19 AM
All I'm looking for in this game is RvR like gw2 but without the culling (and this seems to deliver on that) so this will probably keep me occupied for a month or two (or even more if the guild I play with stays actively in the game)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 15, 2014, 09:57:00 AM
I was mildly entertained though expectantly underwhelmed when I played.  The 'feel' of the game was horrible thematically (zones felt dead, quests were dry and boring, and more times then not it just felt like people running around beating on things).  Combat felt clunky as well; as I've already said (just long animations hiding the turns).  Combined with the dumbed-down choices/interface and you end up with not-much-depth really.

Overall, it's just lacking the complexity to justify a $60+ sub purchase... especially when compared to Wildstar, which frankly blows it away on theme (if you like sci-pulp), combat speed, and depth of gameplay.  If I had a good party-sized group to play with TESO could be fun though for a time as a semi-relaxing action game; but still - the price sux and it's not really what I'm looking for.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2014, 10:01:21 AM
Where to begin? You find yourself immediately in an underground prison with hundreds of other souls wandering around this area. You can't wander far, however, because everything is so gated that you only have one very linear way out. There's nothing to see here other than implements of torture and cages and running shriven, or whatever the hell they call it. You're dead, and you're in this place, and you want to get out. So, you talk to some chick who is voice acted, but the lips don't match up to what she's saying.

You are given a choice of weapon and then kill skeletons or something. Swinging a two handed sword has all the impact on an enemy of hitting it with a noodle. Not to mention that without clipping that works, you can run through enemies, messing up your targeting. Also killing things took forever. You can swing and swing and swing as you watch your efforts make very little dent in the enemy. When something does die, you better get the hell out of there and not take on 2 or 3 things, because they will corpse rape you.

First person mode doesn't work and completely fucks you over from the surroundings standpoint. You will stand in fire and have no clue. Things will hit you because they are respawning in a melee and you won't know why or where. If you're a lore whore and know the ES universe, they basically butcher the shit out of it in this game. They will make the factions completely around where they are and not care about past prejudices or whatnot. They will talk about names you've heard of just because you've heard of them. Molag Bal is the bad guy, which means we're back to fighting Daedra because they are going to rape the world. I think we did this one other time in Oblivion and it was stupid.

The world is soulless. You could care less about why you are there, and who is asking for your help. In places it doesn't look bad, but there's no reason for you to explore it. Everything is gated into this small little chunks and islands and hotspots. You won't want to go wandering around to find nice things or weird artifacts or odd locations. None of the NPCs will resonate with you except the one played by John Cleese with a pot on his head. Because that's funny, you see? He's crazy and he's John Cleese. Do you get it yet? Do you? LAUGH PEONS THIS COST MILLIONS!

Also, there's no reason to be killing things other than the fact they are in the way. Mobs are nothing but an annoyance to finishing your quests where you are tasking to find missing people on a small start up island. This is of course after the convoluted part in the beginning where you try to pull your soul back into the real world. The story made no sense. Even in the beta forums, people were panning the dungeon tutorial as pointless and stupid. They honestly could have followed the regular prisoner trope and dropped you at Starting Island 101, and you'd figure out that the combat is shit.

How shitty? Imagine a tab target skill system with a hack and slash mouse click pasted on top of it with absolutely no meaningful feedback. Targetting sucks. Hitting things provides no feedback. The UI on mobs isn't good enough. You have only one other real option besides hack hack hack, and that's block and hack at the same time to break up the enemy's timed SUPER ATTACK! If you can handle that, you'll kill legions of respawning garbage for no purpose over and over again until you realize you're not even level 4 yet. And you've played for 3 hours. And you log out thinking you'll want to try it later.

And you never load it again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on February 15, 2014, 10:26:38 AM
Fake Edit:  I wrote a bunch of stuff then realized I care so little for this game it's not worth posting.

I expect more from games than what is offered here.  I'm not even sure I'd play this if it were truly f2p. 




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abalieno on February 15, 2014, 10:42:58 AM
EDIT: To expand a little, culling problems aside I was really happy with GW2 WvW.

All I'm looking for in this game is RvR like gw2 but without the culling (and this seems to deliver on that)

Wasn't culling fixed in GW2 almost a year ago? The new WvW map is absolutely excellent. Still low commitment, but at least it's fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on February 15, 2014, 10:48:29 AM
I agree with everything you said. One additional note, is that I feel exactly the same way about Wildstar. These games (both) will have a moderate success among those who can still stomach the same game we've been playing for 15 years as long as it has a new skin and tiny bit of combat improvements -and that is fine!-, but it this is just the n-th example of a new MMORPG coming out that makes me feel as exhausted and bored after 5 levels as if I'd played it daily for the past 6 months.

The difference is that at least some people seem to like Wildstar. I can't recall hearing about a single person anywhere that likes TESO. The reactions to it seem 99%+ extremely negative.

I can't see it even being a moderate success. Even if a few people do like it none of their friends are going to play it with them, so they'll stop soon enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 15, 2014, 11:07:00 AM
So this sounds like the biggest disaster ever.  When all they had to do was make a Skyrim co-op.

No, don't remind me how long this has been in development.  That is not an excuse.  That is the problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 15, 2014, 11:07:21 AM
Wildstar is going to be polarizing. I said something to that effect after I beta'd it. This isn't going to be polarizing at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 15, 2014, 11:52:07 AM
If you like diku mmo in space wildstar is sure to be the bees knees.  It's just a matter of how many people want that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 15, 2014, 11:59:52 AM
Pros and Cons

+++Tons of voice acting!  I would stop by some random dude and they would have a line of dialogue!  Beats SWTOR and TSW because they don't rattle on either.
++ Graphics are good and the engine is great.  I'm running it in Medium settings on my humble GeForce series 4 laptop card.  Butter smooth.
+   Surprisingly, I like the UI for the most part.  Inventory is actually ok and I like the tabs for it.  I like the clean UI but a couple of quibbles remain.
+   Do you like Skyrim?  Would you like to play Skyrim-lite?  Then this is for you!  
+   The crafting looks alright. I dabbled in a couple of things and it's simple and fun.
-   I don't like resource gathering.  Hard as hell to find plants for Alchemy.  Iron was pretty easy and I never chopped a log.  Biggest barrier to me crafting.  Annoying.
-   Most animations are lame.
-   Most armor is lame.  They need better textures.
---THE GRIND.  What year is this?  I was level seven and already in my third zone.  How will I make it to 50, is there enough content?  Dunno but they could up the xp a bit.
-- No AH?  Remind me again why this is an MMO?  Gouging other players is one of my little pleasures in MMO gaming, don't take that away from me!
---Box+sub+cash shop.  Sixty bucks isn't enough to buy an imp?  I mentioned that several times in-game and there was much fanboy wailing and gnashing of teeth.
-- Bugs, lots of bugs, but apparently I was playing an earlier version before the bugs were squashed.  Hrm.  We'll see.

Prediction
This game will sell a LOT of boxes with folks hoping for Skyrim Online.  But the exodus after the first month will rival that of the Jews from Egypt.  
 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on February 15, 2014, 01:34:04 PM
One of the biggest problems ESO has going for it is the first several levels. They suck, a little less if you start as Aldmeri Dominon. It's a very linear start where exploration at that time typically nets you finding some hidden chests with green quality loot. It's a stupid design decision, and it can take a few to several hours before you get past them. Sadly, a lot it seems don't, and that's where most of the hate comes from.

And for whatever reason, maybe it's the aesthetics or the feel of it, but I cannot get myself interested in Wildstar at all. It feels so much like Space WoW to me and even after trying rather hard several times, I just cannot enjoy it. Exact same feeling whenever I attempted to play WoW again.

But ESO? I like the background/lore/setting of Elder Scrolls in general. I also love MMO launches, something about them is still to me so fun and hectic. I know I'll get a solid month of game play from this at least and honestly that's more than most 50-60 dollar single player games ever give me. I don't expect any MMO to keep me longer than a month anymore, haven't for several years. If ESO does, I was be happily surprised and throw them 15 dollars.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 15, 2014, 01:41:09 PM
My feeling is a lot of the negative opinions about ESO is because people didn't get past the tutorial and newbie zones, which are completely on rails and not particularly interesting. Once you get past level 10 or so the world opens up, combat becomes more challenging, and the experience is just dramatically richer. Zenimax did themselves a disservice with the weekend-only stress tests, because people didn't have enough time to get to higher level. Even when they allowed you to keep your character, they were level-capped at 17.

I preordered ESO, but I agree that it will likely go free to play or (like GW2) buy to play in 9-12 months. I'll get my money's worth.

Can't talk about my personal experiences with wildstar as it is still under NDA, but from all the public streams and such you should have a very good idea if you'll like it. Wildstar is WoW in space with a combat system that is likely to be highly annoying for many. You can tell tons of money was spent on both games. Neither one learned any lessons from GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 15, 2014, 01:53:30 PM
Watch the first 14min gameplay video for the southpark RPG.  You don't have to wait to get to the fun in video games, I refuse to buy into the 'wait til X level where the REAL fun begins' bullshit argument ever again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 15, 2014, 02:39:19 PM
I'm not saying the later game excuses a poor introduction. It absolutely categorically doesn't.

MMOs require huge time investments, and when deciding which one to play, you need to look at more than the first 5 hours. It goes both ways. Remember Age of Conan.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: disKret on February 15, 2014, 02:59:37 PM
I stoped playing at lvl 7 I think - where the quest bugs out (summon some 3 ghosts at tombs with a torch) - quest was bugged and there was nothing else to do anywhere, this one quest was blocking whole progress. Go figure how much is there to do in open world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 15, 2014, 03:19:11 PM
I played twice.

The first time I couldn't make it past the tutorial.  The second I forced myself to finish the tutorial and didn't make it past rifling through the books in a few houses.

I liked that I can read a book and it went into a log I could refer back to later, making it both a collection game and a personal library.  That was the only thing that struck me as a positive.  I'm not sure I'd play this if it were f2p, but since it has a pay model from 2004, I'll definitely pass.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on February 15, 2014, 03:21:55 PM
OT, but reading this reminds me of vanilla unpatched Morrowind (yes I'm dating myself) where they hadn't figured out that you needed a health indicator for an enemy. Somehow, they thought that waving a sword in someones face till they fell down, without so much as a blood splash to indicate if you were hitting or even damaging them, was "immersive." This was the days before the internet had really hit, so getting out a patch to fix this glaring oversight wasn't exactly an easy task, but hey did patch in an enemy health bar fairly early.

Just saying that bethsedia was not exactly unknown for colossal screw ups even in its "golden age."



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 15, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
I'm not saying the later game excuses a poor introduction. It absolutely categorically doesn't.

MMOs require huge time investments, and when deciding which one to play, you need to look at more than the first 5 hours. It goes both ways. Remember Age of Conan.

I find those two statements contradictory though.

MMOs don't become magically more fun after the first 5 hours. Generally, by then you're either already having fun and psychologically invested in the game, or you're psychologically invested in the promise of what you think later levels will be enough to slog through the early parts.

As you say, neither excuses a bad introduction. But to then say you need to look at more than the first 5 hours is to imply you can't tell if you'll like something until you've suffered through said bad introduction.

Nobody gets that excuse. Because of WoW, GW2 and other MMOs that are fun right out of the box. Ya know, just like every single other genre of gaming that has never been able to rely on the sheer masochism of the collected idealists who still long for the bygone MUD days when rednames would converse with them. AoC is only a good reference for that excuse making.

MMOs never should have been allowed to rely on the excuse-making that got it through most of the 2000s. And they certainly cannot now, now that so many other types of games have ripped off all the compelling concepts that used to be unique to MMOs (xp, levels, achievements, quests, persistent environments, etc).

I'm glad there are some people who like TESO. And I'm glad they do feel it ok to slog through what they admit is a subpar onboarding experience. But that onboarding is why it will underperform its way into a f2p hail mary when they reset what success is and start bragging about how they monetize the 1% whales.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on February 15, 2014, 03:27:01 PM
I played twice.

The first time I couldn't make it past the tutorial.  The second I forced myself to finish the tutorial and didn't make it past rifling through the books in a few houses.

I liked that I can read a book and it went into a log I could refer back to later, making it both a collection game and a personal library.  That was the only thing that struck me as a positive.  I'm not sure I'd play this if it were f2p, but since it has a pay model from 2004, I'll definitely pass.

This was exactly my same play experience and opinion. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on February 15, 2014, 03:55:56 PM
The game is nothing revolutionary or amazing but it doesn't deserve the drubbing it's getting here either.

If you have grown hateful and cynical of anything that has the scent of an mmo don't buy this, it's just more of the same with an elder scrolls setting.

If you still like mmos and also like the elder scrolls series then buy this game*, it's a nice enough blend of the two.

The first couple areas aren't very good but only take minutes and then hours to get past.  Once you are in your faction's larger more open areas the elder scrolls feeling kicks in and all is good.  I doubt it has an enjoyable endgame but I'm sure I'll have fun for a couple months.  If you like pvp it is essentially daoc which a lot of people liked for whatever reason.

My only real complaint is how combat wants you to be dynamically moving with wasd but how all your specials also use the keyboard.  Unlike WoW and other games like it you can't move around using the mouse because both buttons are linked to attacks.  So your left hand is either moving with the flow of combat or correctly triggering your rotation, but it's impossible to do both.  Very annoying.  I might actually try using a 360 controller on my pc.

* You can also just wait a year after which it will probably be free to play.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on February 15, 2014, 04:18:11 PM
I don't know how to describe how terrible this game is with words... The closest comparison would be:

Imagine you order the most expensive pizza from the best pizza restaurant in town. Instead of cooking the normal delicious pizza, they go across the street to a grocery store and purchase the cheapest frozen pizza available. They bring it back to the restaurant and everyone takes a turn urinating and defecating on it before sliding it into the oven. After it cooks they put it in the box and send it out for delivery. The delivery guy arrives at your house, but refuses to let you look at the pizza until you hand over the money. As soon as you hand him the money, he opens the box and smashes it into your face. Then he runs away laughing while counting your money.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 15, 2014, 04:20:51 PM
The core issue is they tried to split the difference between two games and ended up with something that will please neither camp. It cuts corners on both the MMO and Bethesda sandbox side that will annoy people who come for either of those experiences.

If I had to pick out just one thing that just felt completely awful, though, it was having to share quest 'dungeon' areas with other players. Example: someone asked me to go to the bottom of a family crypt and get something. I ran down to the item, got it, came back, without ever seeing a single monster - the place was packed with other players killing things more or less instantly when they spawned. When I got back to turn it in, the guy had a bunch of crap to say about the stuff I was supposed to fight down there. That feels awful. Those sorts of quests very badly need something akin to SWTOR's micro instancing, but I gather it's something of a design goal to never instance, so blech.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on February 15, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
If I had to pick out just one thing that just felt completely awful, though, it was having to share quest 'dungeon' areas with other players. Example: someone asked me to go to the bottom of a family crypt and get something. I ran down to the item, got it, came back, without ever seeing a single monster - the place was packed with other players killing things more or less instantly when they spawned. When I got back to turn it in, the guy had a bunch of crap to say about the stuff I was supposed to fight down there. That feels awful. Those sorts of quests very badly need something akin to SWTOR's micro instancing, but I gather it's something of a design goal to never instance, so blech.

This was my biggest gripe with the game as well.  It's annoying in any MMO, but for some reason, it was even more irritating than usual this time around.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 15, 2014, 04:59:31 PM
Wasn't culling fixed in GW2 almost a year ago? The new WvW map is absolutely excellent. Still low commitment, but at least it's fun.

Culling wasn't fixed until the 60 people I have in my friends list hadn't logged into the game in 2 months time.

Way fucking late. They didn't/don't give two fucks about WvW. Who knows who is playing it now.

Also I love how they add ranks to WvW but don't give existing people credit. I have 30,000 kills but I'm realm rank 2 or whatever. LAUGHABLE MAN, HA HA!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 15, 2014, 05:24:19 PM
If I had to pick out just one thing that just felt completely awful, though, it was having to share quest 'dungeon' areas with other players. Example: someone asked me to go to the bottom of a family crypt and get something. I ran down to the item, got it, came back, without ever seeing a single monster - the place was packed with other players killing things more or less instantly when they spawned. When I got back to turn it in, the guy had a bunch of crap to say about the stuff I was supposed to fight down there. That feels awful. Those sorts of quests very badly need something akin to SWTOR's micro instancing, but I gather it's something of a design goal to never instance, so blech.

Holy shit TESO does that? Instantiated dungeons free of the Blackburrow/Crushbone problem of other people was a selling point in freakin' City of Heroes.

Gods I feel like Bones in the 1984 hospital rescuing Chekov in Star Trek IV: "sounds like the goddamn Spanish Inquisition"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 15, 2014, 05:44:02 PM
Yeah, that is easily the worst part of the game.  Actually worse than the combat, which is bad.  But the PVE is so bad you sorta don't mind that it goes faster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on February 15, 2014, 05:54:43 PM
Wasn't culling fixed in GW2 almost a year ago? The new WvW map is absolutely excellent. Still low commitment, but at least it's fun.

Culling for WvW was removed nearly a year ago (March 26).  For PVE it was removed August 20.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 15, 2014, 06:03:02 PM
The game is nothing revolutionary or amazing but it doesn't deserve the drubbing it's getting here either.
That's basically how I feel too. I imagine I'll play for the usual 1-3 months, and get my money's worth. It's no GW2 or EQN, but it should be a fun diversion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 15, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
If I had to pick out just one thing that just felt completely awful, though, it was having to share quest 'dungeon' areas with other players. Example: someone asked me to go to the bottom of a family crypt and get something. I ran down to the item, got it, came back, without ever seeing a single monster - the place was packed with other players killing things more or less instantly when they spawned. When I got back to turn it in, the guy had a bunch of crap to say about the stuff I was supposed to fight down there. That feels awful. Those sorts of quests very badly need something akin to SWTOR's micro instancing, but I gather it's something of a design goal to never instance, so blech.

Holy shit TESO does that? Instantiated dungeons free of the Blackburrow/Crushbone problem of other people was a selling point in freakin' City of Heroes.

Gods I feel like Bones in the 1984 hospital rescuing Chekov in Star Trek IV: "sounds like the goddamn Spanish Inquisition"

Some dungeons are public, like above, and some are private for your 5-man invited group.

The problem for me is that after GW2, TESO feels like a step back in MMO evolution.  GW2 isn't robot jesus by a long shot, but it's colorful, fast, fun and great for combat and exploration.  I'm not sure what TESO's role is, maybe it's just MMO's are popular, here's one based on TES.  Fit us for our money hats now kthxbye.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 15, 2014, 06:10:35 PM
Holy shit TESO does that? Instantiated dungeons free of the Blackburrow/Crushbone problem of other people was a selling point in freakin' City of Heroes.
Perhaps it does it because if you want to play TES game without other people in your dungeons, they've made a few of these already :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on February 15, 2014, 06:11:58 PM
The only difference between the type of person that gets bored after 5 levels and the type of person who thinks you have to endure the first 5 levels before the fun starts is that the latter *wants* to like the game.  This is basically the one true bonus of a trusted IP.  People give you alot of benefit of the doubt.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 15, 2014, 08:29:55 PM
Yes. As long as you comform to that IP well. I guess TESO does have that in its favor.

Holy shit TESO does that? Instantiated dungeons free of the Blackburrow/Crushbone problem of other people was a selling point in freakin' City of Heroes.
Perhaps it does it because if you want to play TES game without other people in your dungeons, they've made a few of these already :why_so_serious:

Oh awesome, the "go play something else" defense.

No, see, the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem. Public space dungeons resulted in exactly the situation people have in TESO, where a dungeon is already cleared and the major mobs perpetually camped. Good luck to anyone who doesn't have friends in whatever meta-game guild is camping that area until they outgrow it, or the dozens of huddled masses who have no idea what's going on except to kill anything that moves.

Have you heard of "DKP"? That was invented by the players specifically to solve for this problem.

Bad idea is bad. Bad idea is worse when it was devolved out of the expected MMO experience a freakin' decade ago. A bad idea reemerging in a 2014 MMO is theoretically new and innovative except it is still a fundamentally bad idea in every way except being "new" to the mythical new set of players coming to their first MMO ever, at a time when MMOs are no more new than they are experimental.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 15, 2014, 10:24:22 PM
I can't add much new here. I played the first couple of beta weekends I got invited too. Much like Lantyssa, I couldn't get out of the tutorial area the first time because it was bugged. The second time I wandered around a very drab and ugly starting city for a bit then got bored and logged out. The last few beta invites I got? They sat in my inbox and I didn't bother to give it another shot.

The game is just...boring and drab. The graphics are pretty good but they went with a shitty color scheme that is all browns and greys, at least for the parts I played. The quests are boring. The combat is boring. The leveling up is boring.

Seriously, I'm usually one of those people that gives a new game a shot but TESO? No preorder from me. I might play it in a few months when it is FTP and hopefully they've patched some fun in but I doubt it.

My prediction: Maintenance mode in a year. Tops.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MediumHigh on February 16, 2014, 01:41:38 AM
Angry Joe gushes over PVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 16, 2014, 02:47:48 AM
Angry Joe gushes over PVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0)

I've been seeing that a lot.  The pvp types seem to have fallen in love with ESO and proclaimed it as the new hotness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on February 16, 2014, 03:01:49 AM
Angry Joe gushes over PVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0)

I've been seeing that a lot.  The pvp types seem to have fallen in love with ESO and proclaimed it as the new hotness.

I'm a PvP type. I hated everything about the game's combat and that ruined any enjoyment gained from PvP.

(http://i.imgur.com/2YY4v1C.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on February 16, 2014, 03:11:50 AM
The game is nothing revolutionary or amazing but it doesn't deserve the drubbing it's getting here either.
That's basically how I feel too. I imagine I'll play for the usual 1-3 months, and get my money's worth. It's no GW2 or EQN, but it should be a fun diversion.
Yeah, no, this shit doesn't fly any more. There are far too many decent free-to-play MMOs out there nowadays to go "Welp, another shitty sub-par WoW-clone. Time to throw sixty bucks at it for a couple of weeks' gameplay" unless you are some sort of fucking idiot.

Go play SWTOR or Rift or LOTRO or whatever the Korean flavour-of-the-month is or EQ2, or even Runescape. Hell, even WoW has 1 - 20 as a free play now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 16, 2014, 06:44:43 AM
Just saying that bethsedia was not exactly unknown for colossal screw ups even in its "golden age."
Bioware Austin.  Zenimax Online, not Bethesda.

They still shouldn't have thrown out the lessons of nearly half a dozen games in the series they're taking the name from in addition to every MMO before them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on February 16, 2014, 07:41:51 AM
I never even made it out of the tutorial section. It just oozed dull from every pore.

Unfortunately, my guild in Rift seem to be the only people on the planet excited about it and plan to move, leaving me in the lurch after a month of grinding to get up to raiding levels.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 16, 2014, 07:44:59 AM
Just saying that bethsedia was not exactly unknown for colossal screw ups even in its "golden age."
Bioware Austin.  Zenimax Online, not Bethesda.

They still shouldn't have thrown out the lessons of nearly half a dozen games in the series they're taking the name from in addition to every MMO before them.

They could be ready to turn the game into f2p as soon as the subs fall below a certain level and just hoping to get a few months of sub fees from the people who want to play at the launch. It might actually make sense to intentionally have a  "subs at launch, b2p in x months"-plan already waiting to be implemented (with support for a cash shop and stuff to put there)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 16, 2014, 07:59:53 AM
I never even made it out of the tutorial section. It just oozed dull from every pore.

Unfortunately, my guild in Rift seem to be the only people on the planet excited about it and plan to move, leaving me in the lurch after a month of grinding to get up to raiding levels.

Well, if they have been playing Rift this long, they must love dull ooze.  :grin:

It was endearing to hear all the folks on the chat channel passionately defending it as the answer to their prayers .



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 16, 2014, 09:01:41 AM
Angry Joe gushes over PVP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82pz60iGL0)

I've been seeing that a lot.  The pvp types seem to have fallen in love with ESO and proclaimed it as the new hotness.

That seige game does look like fun.

Does the game have any open world PvP servers?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on February 16, 2014, 09:26:37 AM
Elder Scrolls Online is a free to play MMO released in 2009. It was an okay offering for the time. It's really dated by now and it had a really rough start with its initial combat and skill system, which desperately needed a few serious revamps. It felt a little rushed and unpolished, and needed a lot of love to get out of its initial drudgery into a good spot but I guess that's what's to be expected with such a small development timeframe.

OH WAIT. That's only what the game FELT like. It was actually released in 2014, had been in development for seven years, and was a full box price game requiring a $15 monthly subscription fee.

So it was a flat fucking disaster, obviously.

___


What else is there to say about Elder Scrolls Online? I don't know. It is really insanely easy to cover the basics:

1. Don't buy it.
2. Don't play it.

It is bad in (by now) terribly mundane ways for an MMO to be bad. It's typically and unsurprisingly bad. But I say it is surprisingly bad because I feel like I have to. I had to think of why I felt this way, and I think I came up with the answer: it's because I have nothing else tangible to work with. Me feeling the surprise of "uh, wow, this game won't work" is the only real feeling I can pluck out of the void of having played ESO. That's the most passionate idea of emotion I had throughout the entire length of time I was playing.

Specifically, that I felt surprised by how nonsurprising it was. Everything else was complete ennui.

I only pushed through the game hoping to see new parts of the world, nothing else interested me. Eventually the time and effort investment to move between zones eclipsed my interest thresholds. It was somewhere around when I was hanging out in some big boring city somewhere whateverrrr.

I could not tell you much about my class. There's, like, four of them. They are indistinctly inconsequential in a consequentially inconsequential way, which is annoying both to wrap your head around or to experience in-game. Their consequence is that yes, you are distinctly forced to be a class, that you are sort of forced to build the rest of your character's skill improvement and item use around, more or less.

At least at the time I played it, it had so many glaring issues that you can't have if you want to have an operable, profitable MMO. It's possible they did a complete 180 in terms of that and got their shit hashed out sufficiently since I played, but that's not something I'm going to bet a full price box game purchase on, and I don't think anyone else should either.

____


It feels and plays with a sort of spongy, frustrating unresponsiveness. The animations are janky and weird and there's no sense of physics with the weapons, if that makes sense. You'll have a giant two handed hammer and your character will be swinging it like it's a foam noodle.

Which I guess doesn't matter, because (at least when I was playing) the combat was so terrible that you're not really swinging your foam noodle hammer as much as you are using your mouse to put in buy orders for a future swing that a broker will put in for you and try to get back to you by the end of business day. And I guess THAT doesn't even really matter, because the combat system is just terrible in general. You just end up sort of halfheartedly mashing attacks and skills that minimally annoy you. I was more minimally annoyed by <ROGUE CLASS> than I was by <MAGE CLASS>. I guess.

If I had gotten to endgame bosses or challenges in this game which required efficient and calculated use of my skillset (and not let me get away with just mashing some buttons) I would have considered the exercise akin to its own discrete circle of hell. I never want to have to research my ESO rotations and priority lists because ughh. But that's irrelevant, because I dropped out well before I ever got to anything like that, and most everyone else will too. And I will never be compelled to experience this.


___

Elder Scrolls Online's combat system is great if you enjoy the experience of spamming attacks and generally dealing with combat so relentlessly unresponsive that you end up feeling like you are trying to throw punches underwater. You're yelling at your fist. Go faster, fist! you yell at it. But it can't go faster through water, uggh it's so annoying, so you uninstall the water from your backyard pool and write a nasty review about the pool. Like this. The moral of the story is, don't play Elder Scrolls Online, seriously.

___


The game just feels so dated. It just feels older to me than if I were playing another MMO released half a decade ago. There were some good elements to the game throughout which don't matter because don't play Elder Scrolls Online. There's a few little innovations or positive quirks here and there and some little things which stood out as favorable contributions to the overall quality of the game which don't matter because don't play Elder Scrolls Online. The game is obviously not all bad, you could say plenty of good things about many of its elements, but none of them elevate the game to a level where it is worth actually purchasing to play. I could hedge my assessment with categorically worthless pablum like "Some people will definitely still like Elder Scrolls Online" or "The character creation was kind of fun!" or "I think the PvP was kind of like that other PvP I liked in that much older game!" or "Many elements of this game would have been really good if they had just been implemented better" or "I enjoyed the music at times" or "Some areas were very visually interesting" or "This game would have been good if it were good." But don't play Elder Scrolls Online.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 16, 2014, 10:15:28 AM
Yes. As long as you comform to that IP well. I guess TESO does have that in its favor.

Holy shit TESO does that? Instantiated dungeons free of the Blackburrow/Crushbone problem of other people was a selling point in freakin' City of Heroes.
Perhaps it does it because if you want to play TES game without other people in your dungeons, they've made a few of these already :why_so_serious:

Oh awesome, the "go play something else" defense.

No, see, the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem. Public space dungeons resulted in exactly the situation people have in TESO, where a dungeon is already cleared and the major mobs perpetually camped. Good luck to anyone who doesn't have friends in whatever meta-game guild is camping that area until they outgrow it, or the dozens of huddled masses who have no idea what's going on except to kill anything that moves.

Have you heard of "DKP"? That was invented by the players specifically to solve for this problem.

Bad idea is bad. Bad idea is worse when it was devolved out of the expected MMO experience a freakin' decade ago. A bad idea reemerging in a 2014 MMO is theoretically new and innovative except it is still a fundamentally bad idea in every way except being "new" to the mythical new set of players coming to their first MMO ever, at a time when MMOs are no more new than they are experimental.

Yeah unfortunately we're all advancing to the point where we're not targetted by this kind of game, because I believe developers believe they can inflict similar pains we're tired of on a new generation of gamers. I'm not sure they are right, but they will try.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 16, 2014, 12:27:19 PM
I kind of liked it.

It's not spectacular. The world isn't going to be set alight by this game. I suspect it's going to get bad reviews. And yet...

The main thing is I'm a sucker for the world. The prospect of exploring it is absolute catnip to me, even if it's gated by levels and such. I like the graphics. I like the art style. I don't think the color choices are particularly bad, though a few places the metal textures glow with a weird plastic quality. The voice acting is mostly really good, maybe the best I can recall in an Elder Scrolls game, and I think it's frankly better more often than SWTOR's.

Combat is a mixed bag. I agree that it's clunky. I don't know how to fix it. I actually really like character creation and the classes, though. It's Elder Scrolls with individual doodad abilities when you slowly skill up. Nothing about it feels not TES, other than the fact that you do get abilities 1-5 as hot key abilities. That's totally okay with me.

Some of the questing is good, with some puzzle quests and such. Some is dogshit, with collect ten bear asses quests. At this point, I don't think that mixed bag is going to change appreciably.

There are some very bad things, though. The lack of an AH is absolutely baffling to me. You launch with an AH, period. Crafting is godawful, requiring massive amounts of mats to level up.

The big one, though, is the faction gating. That's going to be a fucking disastrous decision. Because you cannot group cross faction and factions are only three races apiece. That's going to split guilds and friends up in balkanization we haven't seen before. It's one thing when your friends choose Faction A and Faction A has five races, minimum, allowing you to find something cool. Here we have three races per. Race choice during chargen is such a big part of how most people play TES. To say "your Breton which you've been playing for 15 years cannot play with your Dark Elf buddies, ever" is just inexcusable.

It's compounded by the fact that the most iconic locations/races (Dark Elves, Nords, Skyrim, and Morrowind) are grouped into one faction. The Ebonheart group are going to be absurdly overpopulated compared to the others. Already in beta, I bopped over to the High Elf/Wood Elf/Khaijit side during prime time this last beta weekend and it was a ghost town. Just an absolutely terrible decision.

Will I buy it? Probably. I'm leaving myself some wiggle room. I did actually enjoy my time there but the slow pace of leveling has me a little nervous that I'll get to see everything I want to see. The buy-in cost is pretty steep for this day and age.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 16, 2014, 12:40:40 PM
I don't think the sides with the two kinds of elves and the cat people is going to have a population problem.  The side that is just humans, black humans and orcs is going to be completely desolated.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 16, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
The biggest issue I see with this game has already been mentioned.  The game is seemingly built for a first person combat perspective, but the mechanics of combat (ground effects, etc) punish you for using this perspective.  The are other issues, but many of them come from the feeling of been-there-done-that.  I can see someone loving the ES world enjoying this game, but the shine won't last long without some serious miracle patches after release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 16, 2014, 12:44:19 PM
Oh awesome, the "go play something else" defense.

No, see, the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem.
whoosh.

The MMO genre outgrew the idea. Or rather, people who played this in x games over y years got fed up with it. Meantime, we are talking about multiplayer version of the single-player RPG series. You know, the one where the players did nothing for y years but spent their time in dungeons solo. For them, having other players in multiplayer elder scrolls game may be actually novel and refreshing. Not in the least because likely half of the current MMO players never got to experience the non-instanced MMO dungeons, coming to the genre post-WoW.

edit: and really, the concept of having smaller areas shared with few players as opposed to having bigger areas shared with a lot of players it's due to "technology progress"? When we had the latter way longer than we had the former?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 16, 2014, 12:49:15 PM
I don't think the sides with the two kinds of elves and the cat people is going to have a population problem.  The side that is just humans, black humans and orcs is going to be completely desolated.

I think you're going to be surprised. Elf people are going to go Dark Elves over the others. People who remember Morrowind (and there are so many more of these than you think) fondly are going to go Dark Elves. Toss in the ability to adventure through Skyrim and weird fantasy Morrowind and it's going to be nuts.

After bopping around all three factions across four betas to gauge things, the Orcs/Redguard/Breton side was surprisingly well represented, maybe because Daggerfall still has some name value. I dunno. But the Akavir Compact (is that what they're called?) were consistently underpopulated compared to the other two.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on February 16, 2014, 12:49:59 PM
The big one, though, is the faction gating. That's going to be a fucking disastrous decision. Because you cannot group cross faction and factions are only three races apiece. That's going to split guilds and friends up in balkanization we haven't seen before. It's one thing when your friends choose Faction A and Faction A has five races, minimum, allowing you to find something cool. Here we have three races per. Race choice during chargen is such a big part of how most people play TES. To say "your Breton which you've been playing for 15 years cannot play with your Dark Elf buddies, ever" is just inexcusable.

Doesn't the standard (non-imperial) pre-order remove those restrictions?  Maybe they're banking on it annoying people enough that it will force them to pre-order.

The biggest issue I see with this game has already been mentioned.  The game is seemingly built for a first person combat perspective, but the mechanics of combat (ground effects, etc) punish you for using this perspective.  The are other issues, but many of them come from the feeling of been-there-done-that.  I can see someone loving the ES world enjoying this game, but the shine won't last long without some serious miracle patches after release.

I thought I read somewhere that first-person wasn't originally in the game and was only added sometime during alpha/closed beta based on player feedback.  I had issues playing my Dragonknight (or whatever it was called) in first-person because I couldn't tell when my self buffs wore off, while it was immediately obvious if you were in third-person mode.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 16, 2014, 01:07:55 PM
the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem.
Your premise is correct, but the conclusion is not necessarily true. I expect the public dungeons to be crowded as hell upon initial release, and that will provide exactly the poor gameplay you're talking about. But, as long as public dungeons aren't endgame content, that will cease to be a problem after the initial rush.

Then again, even for leveling only content, where you're supposed to happen across the dungeon and group up with 1-2 others, wouldn't instancing be better?

Yeah, no, this shit doesn't fly any more. There are far too many decent free-to-play MMOs out there nowadays to go "Welp, another shitty sub-par WoW-clone. Time to throw sixty bucks at it for a couple of weeks' gameplay" unless you are some sort of fucking idiot.
Hey, fuck you too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on February 16, 2014, 03:36:17 PM
The core issue is they tried to split the difference between two games and ended up with something that will please neither camp. It cuts corners on both the MMO and Bethesda sandbox side that will annoy people who come for either of those experiences.

If I had to pick out just one thing that just felt completely awful, though, it was having to share quest 'dungeon' areas with other players. Example: someone asked me to go to the bottom of a family crypt and get something. I ran down to the item, got it, came back, without ever seeing a single monster - the place was packed with other players killing things more or less instantly when they spawned. When I got back to turn it in, the guy had a bunch of crap to say about the stuff I was supposed to fight down there. That feels awful. Those sorts of quests very badly need something akin to SWTOR's micro instancing, but I gather it's something of a design goal to never instance, so blech.

This was exactly what SWTOR was like for me when I tried it post f2p. Everything that wasn't a special class instance was the Blackburrow experience dialed to 11 because you had to be there because the story demanded it.

Elder Scrolls Online is a free to play MMO released in 2009. It was an okay offering for the time.

Amazing post Sam, thank you for that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 16, 2014, 03:44:26 PM
the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem.
Your premise is correct, but the conclusion is not necessarily true. I expect the public dungeons to be crowded as hell upon initial release, and that will provide exactly the poor gameplay you're talking about. But, as long as public dungeons aren't endgame content, that will cease to be a problem after the initial rush.

Then again, even for leveling only content, where you're supposed to happen across the dungeon and group up with 1-2 others, wouldn't instancing be better?

For people who play, I hope you're right.

However, the other side of the problem is needing other people when the dungeon is no longer doable along. Instantiated content didn't just remove the hell of other people. It coincided with the experiment in scaling the content to the number and configuration of the group that joined the instance. Before that, if there weren't PLers kicking around Crushbone or Blackburrow, you weren't getting out of the entry tunnel in the level range you were sent there.

Granted, you weren't completely cockblocked from continuing the game, just needed to find a new place to grind. The whole idea of quest-based advancement came way later (DAoC dabbled, CoH did it better, eventually WoW got it right in general ways).

Back to TESO: once people outgrow the dungeons, can they still do it? Or will it be group required (again, not a bad thing if you have a dedicated guild/group). Not all old ideas are bad by default. For example, we spent almost a decade of MMOs bragging about seamless transitions between zones as a selling point, and yet that's never really a critique anyone lodges at GW2 nor most of WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 16, 2014, 04:54:14 PM
Oh awesome, the "go play something else" defense.

No, see, the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem.
whoosh.

The MMO genre outgrew the idea. Or rather, people who played this in x games over y years got fed up with it. Meantime, we are talking about multiplayer version of the single-player RPG series. You know, the one where the players did nothing for y years but spent their time in dungeons solo. For them, having other players in multiplayer elder scrolls game may be actually novel and refreshing. Not in the least because likely half of the current MMO players never got to experience the non-instanced MMO dungeons, coming to the genre post-WoW.

edit: and really, the concept of having smaller areas shared with few players as opposed to having bigger areas shared with a lot of players it's due to "technology progress"? When we had the latter way longer than we had the former?

You're an idiot.  Just because console and solo pc players might be new to an idea doesn't suddenly make it a good one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 16, 2014, 04:59:11 PM
However, the other side of the problem is needing other people when the dungeon is no longer doable along. Instantiated content didn't just remove the hell of other people. It coincided with the experiment in scaling the content to the number and configuration of the group that joined the instance. Before that, if there weren't PLers kicking around Crushbone or Blackburrow, you weren't getting out of the entry tunnel in the level range you were sent there.
Yeah. The devs call these public dungeons "friction areas" designed to get players to interact with each other, to remove the massively single-player feel of many other recent MMOs. A laudable goal. But if nobody's around, what are you supposed to do? You can come back and solo once you outlevel the area, but other than just seeing the content, why would you? The rewards won't be worthwhile.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 16, 2014, 05:07:08 PM
You're an idiot.  Just because console and solo pc players might be new to an idea doesn't suddenly make it a good one.
If anyone actually said it's a good idea, you'd have a point.

Since that didn't happen and it's very much a strawman, the irony of you calling me an idiot over it is staggering.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on February 16, 2014, 05:22:04 PM
Hearing that the pvp in this game is "fun" to me is a bit of a red flag tbh.  I remember how fun pvp was in Warhammer beta because everyone was actually participating in it.  Once live opened though, the focus was on getting gear and getting max level and all those great lower level pvp moments stopped happening.  Still, I plan on playing wait and see because there really is room in the market for a game that can somehow do pvp right no matter what their actual intention was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 16, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
Oh awesome, the "go play something else" defense.

No, see, the genre outgrew the idea that dungeons are public space not because it was innovative to try something new, but because the technology progressed to a point that it could solve a fundamental user experience problem.
whoosh.

The MMO genre outgrew the idea. Or rather, people who played this in x games over y years got fed up with it. Meantime, we are talking about multiplayer version of the single-player RPG series. You know, the one where the players did nothing for y years but spent their time in dungeons solo. For them, having other players in multiplayer elder scrolls game may be actually novel and refreshing. Not in the least because likely half of the current MMO players never got to experience the non-instanced MMO dungeons, coming to the genre post-WoW.

You're arguing that old ideas we've long since forgotten are worth doing because new players haven't experienced the same pain we did over a decade ago (and maybe with a sense they'll turn out differently, liking different things or something).

On that merit alone, we have no common ground in this debate.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Aza on February 16, 2014, 06:43:37 PM
Not to poopoo the internet :uhrr: though I see lots of holistic assumptions about this game being made from people not playing beyond the tutorial levels. Which is fine, but I'm always amazed by how much is then written about an opinion that is strictly made up of limited knowledge. This game has MMO staples (types of group content, pvp, and solo play), which seems, by many, to be strictly interpreted as a bad thing. MMOs have become pretty established as a genre, but I think people are expecting something revolutionary where it doesn't really make sense (GW2 made some bold combat choices, which ended up making the game's pve extremely shallow, for example).

I hope MMOs continue to improve through iteration, and I think TESO has taken some interestingly (for good or bad no one can tell at this point; eg. combat and story presentation) exploratory steps.

Here is another pretty good video that shows the type of content, story, group, and exploration that is encountered outside of the lowb zones. I'd recommend the watch if anyone wants to learn more about the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiqDFg5SKZY


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Megrim on February 16, 2014, 06:59:40 PM
Not to poopoo the internet :uhrr: though I see lots of holistic assumptions about this game being made from people not playing beyond the tutorial levels. Which is fine, but I'm always amazed by how much is then written about an opinion that is strictly made up of limited knowledge. This game has MMO staples (types of group content, pvp, and solo play), which seems, by many, to be strictly interpreted as a bad thing. MMOs have become pretty established as a genre, but I think people are expecting something revolutionary where it doesn't really make sense (GW2 made some bold combat choices, which ended up making the game's pve extremely shallow, for example).

I hope MMOs continue to improve through iteration, and I think TESO has taken some interestingly (for good or bad no one can tell at this point; eg. combat and story presentation) exploratory steps.

Here is another pretty good video that shows the type of content, story, group, and exploration that is encountered outside of the lowb zones. I'd recommend the watch if anyone wants to learn more about the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiqDFg5SKZY

I am newb to battlefields. I log into game, click around, select engineer class because I like the sound of it.

I have a gun that goes brrt brrt, a pistol that goes pew pew, and a rocket lawnchair that goes whoosh. I start a game, and within 30 seconds, I brrt brrt two guys, pew pew another one, and whoosh a scary loud tank, blowing it up and fragging two more level gorillion nerds.

I'm now 5-0, and capping a control point. I'm having fun! This is awesome!




"B-b-buht the game gets better after you do the tutorial" isn't actually a thing. Hasn't been for a more than a decade.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 16, 2014, 07:14:14 PM
"B-b-buht the game gets better after you do the tutorial" isn't actually a thing. Hasn't been for a more than a decade.
I love the snark and all but that's silly talk. Of course it's a thing. Happens all the time. It's just poor design because it doesn't bode well for commercial success. The first couple hours are critical to get players hooked. How many games have you started, then never returned? How many times have you clicked "delete local content" in Steam on a game you played for one night?

It's not the kiss of death, particularly in a MMO, because there are often multiple factors incenting players to return. Of course there's post purchase rationalization; you spent $60 and if the game is crap you made a poor decision, so you try to like it. There's also the community, your guild or group of friends may be trying the game en masse. ESO expands an existing IP, and Skyrim sold like crack to schoolkids, so those people will give it a chance too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 16, 2014, 07:16:57 PM
Not to poopoo the internet :uhrr: though I see lots of holistic assumptions about this game being made from people not playing beyond the tutorial levels. Which is fine, but I'm always amazed by how much is then written about an opinion that is strictly made up of limited knowledge.

WoW was fun in the first 3 hours. In fact, it was so much more fun than what came before it, that people couldn't shut up about it.

SWTOR was fun in the first 3 hours. You had stories and cool areas, and you were generally engaged in what was going on.

WAR was even fun in the first 3 hours. I don't remember exactly why it was, but it was.

Every MMO tends to get less fun and more grindy at the end of the game. If you can't even get the first 3 hours right? WTF are you doing that makes me assume you're bucking the trend to get interesting later in a genre known for uninteresting later content?

No sale.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 16, 2014, 07:20:52 PM
ESO's first couple hours aren't complete dogshit. If you haven't burned out on previous MMOs, you may even find it compelling. It's a less polished, and OK, "fun" experience than WoW's cataclysm-era newbie areas, certainly, but superior to recent MMOs like Rift, and comparable to TOR, FFXIV, and Wildstar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 16, 2014, 07:21:46 PM
I do believe that video will have the opposite effect Aza was intending.  :awesome_for_real:  But, it fully illustrates what I would've said; there's just not much "to" the game.  It's a rather simple, casual experience in a drab landscape.  Kinda reminds me of "Two Worlds 2" actually, which I hated.

The PvP is a decent touch; but as said prior, it has no real stickiness aside from earning the right to fight Molag Bal for your Alliance.  And there's no real player/guild investment in it (from what I know of it), unlike games like AoC or Eve, or even Wildstar's warplots.

Many speak of having fun for a month or so and being happy with that.  I'd say you're kidding yourselves unless you're a consoleer or MMO-newb.  The game has few distractions from the baseline whack-a-mole.  You have the patience to do that for 50 lvls, god help you.  Myself, I need other more robust features to take the sting off the typical combat grind. (like in-depth storyline, guild features, housing, robust crafting, rep. grinds, etc.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 16, 2014, 07:27:12 PM
Many speak of having fun for a month or so and being happy with that.  I'd say you're kidding yourselves unless you're a consoleer or MMO-newb.

I'm normally one of those people that will buy an MMO for the free month and feel like a got a reasonable value.  With ESO, I'm not so sure anymore.  I may actually pass on this one and wait for Wildstar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 16, 2014, 07:42:18 PM
Could play both w/o fear of overlap, considering ESO is not the type of MMO that'll hinder gametime in another space.  For all the negative, it does have a very pop-in/out feel to it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 16, 2014, 07:45:23 PM
Could play both w/o fear of overlap, considering ESO is not the type of MMO that'll hinder gametime in another space.  For all the negative, it does have a very pop-in/out feel to it.

Cept for you know, sub.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 16, 2014, 07:50:03 PM
ESO's first couple hours aren't complete dogshit.

No, the game works. It's not dogshit. It's just not fun.

The thing about "burnout" now is that you're releasing a game into that market where WoW is a thing. To ignore it is ridiculous. If you don't bring something new to the table other than a setting? The game is proper fucked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Aza on February 16, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
I do believe that video will have the opposite effect Aza was intending.  :awesome_for_real:  But, it fully illustrates what I would've said; there's just not much "to" the game.  It's a rather simple, casual experience in a drab landscape.  Kinda reminds me of "Two Worlds 2" actually, which I hated.

The PvP is a decent touch; but as said prior, it has no real stickiness aside from earning the right to fight Molag Bal for your Alliance.  And there's no real player/guild investment in it (from what I know of it), unlike games like AoC or Eve, or even Wildstar's warplots.

Many speak of having fun for a month or so and being happy with that.  I'd say you're kidding yourselves unless you're a consoleer or MMO-newb.  The game has few distractions from the baseline whack-a-mole.  You have the patience to do that for 50 lvls, god help you.  Myself, I need other more robust features to take the sting off the typical combat grind. (like in-depth storyline, guild features, housing, robust crafting, rep. grinds, etc.)

I'm glad you brought this up. I'm not trying to sell this game on anyone, and I'm glad you are able to make a decision on the game based on information about what the game offers. It's long-winded discussion using broadly generic of terms how the game 'feels', 'is generic', is 'rehash', is what drives me batty.

To what others are driving home: there is something to be said for a game wanting to make sure it makes a good first impression, and this game definitely fails spectacularly at that (It's hard to think of a worse MMO starter area experience than the prison, even).

What I'm in for: I want to play MMOs that have a good group experience for pvp and pve with solid solo elements (story, exploration,  and strategic combat challenges). I think this game can deliver those. If all is well I'll be done with the game in about 2 months time, like the typical MMO these days. I find if I stay longer than that there is something wrong with me (buying into the max level grind and repeating too much content for wasting time purposes  :ye_gods:).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 16, 2014, 07:52:11 PM
I spent 4 solid weekends in the beta.  I'm actually surprised that I didn't run into any of you.  What I got from those weekends was that the game was very bland and had no 'stick' to it at all.  I never felt compelled to do anything... which you really need in an MMO.  Something should drive you to that next quest or that next area.  In ESO, it just seemed like working in a factory.  Grab a quest, finish the objective, and more on to the next.  

ESO is like chain restaurant food.  You'll never rave about it, but it can fill the void when you're hungry and don't feel like cooking.  If I play ESO, it will be because I didn't have anything else that I felt like playing or some friends dragged me along.  Dare I say that ESO is the Denny's of MMOs.  You don't go to Denny's, you end up there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 16, 2014, 07:58:26 PM
I fucking love Denny's.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on February 16, 2014, 08:11:15 PM
Somebody put samprimary's assessment on the front page, stat. Really nicely laid out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 16, 2014, 08:13:00 PM
Somebody put samprimary's assessment on the front page, stat. Really nicely laid out.

^^ This.  Sam really hit every one of my feelings on this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 16, 2014, 08:39:20 PM
ESO's first couple hours aren't complete dogshit. If you haven't burned out on previous MMOs, you may even find it compelling. It's a less polished, and OK, "fun" experience than WoW's cataclysm-era newbie areas, certainly, but superior to recent MMOs like Rift, and comparable to TOR, FFXIV, and Wildstar.

"If you haven't played any other games you might like it only because you don't know how bad it is compared to everything else!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 16, 2014, 08:40:10 PM
If you don't bring something new to the table other than a setting? The game is proper fucked.
The thing is, there's like literally three 'new things' over entire development of the genre

initial iteration "what the fuck do i do now"
quest-oriented "here's what you do now" (WoW)
now with public quests (WAR i think? perhaps that's why WAR too felt vaguely fun for you)

Innovation is rare. Like, once per few years rare. it's not even MMO thing, it's not like there isn't million shooters, beat'em-ups, RTS and whatevers else, all with the same mechanics being released every year, too, until once-twice per decade or so someone has an idea to bolt on something more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 16, 2014, 10:23:28 PM
considering ESO is not the type of MMO that'll hinder gametime in another space. 

Can someone translate this out of timecube into English for me? Because as a person who only operates on one plane, and has only so many hours to play games, any game I play hinders my game time in other games. That's kind of how time WORKS.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MediumHigh on February 16, 2014, 11:38:37 PM
If you don't bring something new to the table other than a setting? The game is proper fucked.
The thing is, there's like literally three 'new things' over entire development of the genre

initial iteration "what the fuck do i do now"
quest-oriented "here's what you do now" (WoW)
now with public quests (WAR i think? perhaps that's why WAR too felt vaguely fun for you)

Innovation is rare. Like, once per few years rare. it's not even MMO thing, it's not like there isn't million shooters, beat'em-ups, RTS and whatevers else, all with the same mechanics being released every year, too, until once-twice per decade or so someone has an idea to bolt on something more.

Except all those games aren't graphical chat rooms with a paid subscription for the privilege of a persistent avatar. We can swallow iterations of the same old shit because at worst their fun. At worst. With no other financial, time, or social commitment the first 5 minutes is either really fun or not worth your time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 17, 2014, 12:11:01 AM
considering ESO is not the type of MMO that'll hinder gametime in another space. 

Can someone translate this out of timecube into English for me? Because as a person who only operates on one plane, and has only so many hours to play games, any game I play hinders my game time in other games. That's kind of how time WORKS.

It's not the type of game that singularly eats your life.  Pop in/out.  Uncomplicated.  A 'filler game' essentially.  Perhaps a sidedish.  Of course you knew that, but we can talk about spacetime, relativistic thought, and multi-tasking theorem too if ya' want.   :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 17, 2014, 12:15:34 AM
If you don't bring something new to the table other than a setting? The game is proper fucked.
The thing is, there's like literally three 'new things' over entire development of the genre

initial iteration "what the fuck do i do now"
quest-oriented "here's what you do now" (WoW)
now with public quests (WAR i think? perhaps that's why WAR too felt vaguely fun for you)

Innovation is rare. Like, once per few years rare. it's not even MMO thing, it's not like there isn't million shooters, beat'em-ups, RTS and whatevers else, all with the same mechanics being released every year, too, until once-twice per decade or so someone has an idea to bolt on something more.

Except all those games aren't graphical chat rooms with a paid subscription for the privilege of a persistent avatar. We can swallow iterations of the same old shit because at worst their fun. At worst. With no other financial, time, or social commitment the first 5 minutes is either really fun or not worth your time.

I guess we differ there. In the first 5 minutes of a game like Crusader Kings 2 are not really "fun" but I think it's one of the greatest games around (this is not an endorsement for ESO but rather to disagree on the idea that first 5 minutes is enough to determine if the game is good or not).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on February 17, 2014, 12:29:51 AM
One of the more important things to remember is that you have to think of MMO's as an investment when you buy into them, in the sense that they are promising you a continuously evolving world, storyline, shit to do, community to care about (and to give your achievements context and some sort of social importance). As it stands, ESO seems like a really bad investment. Even if you're enjoying the beta experience as an individual, the game crashing and burning is outside of your control and if this thing's gonna pump and dump to f2p after it starts ghost towning, maybe just .. wait for that instead.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 17, 2014, 12:35:45 AM
One of the more important things to remember is that you have to think of MMO's as an investment when you buy into them, in the sense that they are promising you a continuously evolving world, storyline, shit to do, community to care about (and to give your achievements context and some sort of social importance). As it stands, ESO seems like a really bad investment. Even if you're enjoying the beta experience as an individual, the game crashing and burning is outside of your control and if this thing's gonna pump and dump to f2p after it starts ghost towning, maybe just .. wait for that instead.

If you think of games as investment then any single player game is far better to buy atleast a year after its release once it's patched and on sale. Unfortunately for MMOs the launch is the time when there are more players around and while things get patched later (and the game usually becomes cheaper) the newbie experience might resemble a barren wasteland.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 12:50:01 AM
"B-b-buht the game gets better after you do the tutorial" isn't actually a thing. Hasn't been for a more than a decade.

I am in no way trying to defend TESO. Over many beta test sessions I only made it to level 7. It is quite unbearable. I really wanted to at least get to ten to try the PvP and I simply couldn't force myself to do it. This never happened to me before, not to this extent at least.

But at the same time I want to state once again that I had the same identical experience with Wildstar. Lots of people are head over heels about it but I challenge them to show me where the first 7 (or the first two hours) of Wildstar are in any way less boring or better designed than TESO.

Obviously personal taste plays a big role, so it's more than OK for people to just click with a kind of presentation and merrily slog through the n-th repetition of the first ten levels of WoW, but I wish more people were open to admit that fun and boring are often just a result of the right combination of lights and sounds, more than actual good or bad game design. The whole idea of "if this doesn't hook me in the first 5 minutes, then it's not going to" in a time with so many similar offers is a testament to this, and how we need for something intangible to tickle our pleasure centres and release bliss in our system or we are not gonna bother. Think about comics and how many times you rejected one because the first few pages, if not the cover, sucked for you.

I think the problem with TESO, on top of apparently being devoid of enough innovation to justify a replay for old players like us, is that its presentation -for some reason- is less than hot. It can be OK, sure, but it is so NOT exciting that you'd have to fool yourself to go on a second date with it/her/him. And you know you can easily find better things to do that night.

Wildstar is pretty much the same in the first 7 minutes/7 levels, but at least it presents itself as a cuter date to some. That alone will almost certainly win it more followers.

About the kiss of death, I honestly think it's the subscription model. Fuck that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on February 17, 2014, 02:00:54 AM
I would have to disagree re ESO opening sections.

They absolutely are dogshit. Easily the worse tutorial / beginner experience I've played in an MMO in years, and I even played the original EQ2 starter island. It's beyond bland, it's confusing, and worse of all it routinely *breaks* leaving the player stuck in the tutorial with no way to progress. Wildstar has the same flaws but at least it doesn't break and is a lot more colourful.

Vanilla launch starting areas for WoW were better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 17, 2014, 04:38:01 AM
Oh yes, those first few levels. Whoever made them should be fired immediately. It's not that they're bad in a way the rest of the game isn't so much as it is that they're the anti-Elder Scrolls. Puzzle quests and interesting nooks of story? All after the first area. Put every faction on a small island, making the world immediately feel constrained? Holy shit, yes, and this is the worst part. I remember the feeling you get in every TES game when you escape the prison and you're suddenly thrust into this huge world. I love that feeling; just a sudden burst of sunlight and woosh, you're there in this big place which is yours to tackle.

TESO it's just, yeah, here's a tiny island. And it definitely feels tiny. All three factions. I can't believe they did it like that, particularly since the experience really is better once you get to the actual continent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 17, 2014, 06:23:27 AM
"B-b-buht the game gets better after you do the tutorial" isn't actually a thing. Hasn't been for a more than a decade.

I am in no way trying to defend TESO. Over many beta test sessions I only made it to level 7. It is quite unbearable. I really wanted to at least get to ten to try the PvP and I simply couldn't force myself to do it. This never happened to me before, not to this extent at least.

But at the same time I want to state once again that I had the same identical experience with Wildstar. Lots of people are head over heels about it but I challenge them to show me where the first 7 (or the first two hours) of Wildstar are in any way less boring or better designed than TESO.

Obviously personal taste plays a big role, so it's more than OK for people to just click with a kind of presentation and merrily slog through the n-th repetition of the first ten levels of WoW, but I wish more people were open to admit that fun and boring are often just a result of the right combination of lights and sounds, more than actual good or bad game design. The whole idea of "if this doesn't hook me in the first 5 minutes, then it's not going to" in a time with so many similar offers is a testament to this, and how we need for something intangible to tickle our pleasure centres and release bliss in our system or we are not gonna bother. Think about comics and how many times you rejected one because the first few pages, if not the cover, sucked for you.

I think the problem with TESO, on top of apparently being devoid of enough innovation to justify a replay for old players like us, is that its presentation -for some reason- is less than hot. It can be OK, sure, but it is so NOT exciting that you'd have to fool yourself to go on a second date with it/her/him. And you know you can easily find better things to do that night.

Wildstar is pretty much the same in the first 7 minutes/7 levels, but at least it presents itself as a cuter date to some. That alone will almost certainly win it more followers.

About the kiss of death, I honestly think it's the subscription model. Fuck that.

I totally agree with this, and actually at least with TESO i had something to look forward too if i managed to level to 10.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 06:37:39 AM
If you feel like reading, here's someone trying to point out the hidden qualities of TESO. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/8219/ESO-Its-The-Little-Things.html/page/1?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com)

They mention treasure maps, lost dungeons, unique crafting stations and the likes.

Quote
I’ve read comments about how ESO is still an on-rails themepark, but really, try actually running around the world.

[...]

It’s not often I want to fall back on telling someone they are “playing the game wrong”, but I do feel that the prevailing opinion that exploration in ESO is pointless is more than a bit inaccurate. There is simply a lot to explore and discover in the game and I feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on February 17, 2014, 06:43:39 AM
I think the thing about ESO that annoys me the most isn't the game, its the fans who don't appear to have played an MMO since 2007 or so. constantly harping on about amazing things that ESO that no-one else ahs done, such as :

Exploring! (GW2)
Puzzles! (RIFT)
Action based combat (too many to list)

A *lot* of the people praising ESO on the forums I read appear to be comparing it to a vanilla WoW that vanished years ago. I think their heads would drop off if they actually played an MMO released in the last 5 years - or even WoW in it's current state,


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on February 17, 2014, 07:19:32 AM
One of the more important things to remember is that you have to think of MMO's as an investment when you buy into them, in the sense that they are promising you a continuously evolving world, storyline, shit to do, community to care about (and to give your achievements context and some sort of social importance). As it stands, ESO seems like a really bad investment. Even if you're enjoying the beta experience as an individual, the game crashing and burning is outside of your control and if this thing's gonna pump and dump to f2p after it starts ghost towning, maybe just .. wait for that instead.

If you think of games as investment then any single player game is far better to buy atleast a year after its release once it's patched and on sale. Unfortunately for MMOs the launch is the time when there are more players around and while things get patched later (and the game usually becomes cheaper) the newbie experience might resemble a barren wasteland.

games in general i would apply the model less to, it's just that a large amount of the quality of the experience of an mmo is at the mercy of population maintenance. if the game makes it as planned, the content keeps flowing. if the game ghosts out, it's a downhill all the way thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on February 17, 2014, 07:31:39 AM
If you feel like reading, here's someone trying to point out the hidden qualities of TESO. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/8219/ESO-Its-The-Little-Things.html/page/1?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com)

They mention treasure maps, lost dungeons, unique crafting stations and the likes.

Quote
I’ve read comments about how ESO is still an on-rails themepark, but really, try actually running around the world.

[...]

It’s not often I want to fall back on telling someone they are “playing the game wrong”, but I do feel that the prevailing opinion that exploration in ESO is pointless is more than a bit inaccurate. There is simply a lot to explore and discover in the game and I feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface.

This guy has it right. Between marketing and early experience design, they've done an amazing job of making the interesting stuff completely invisible. I'm not saying "everyone should like TESO" but I am saying that I've never seen anything quite like the rotten job they've done making sure people hate the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 17, 2014, 07:56:57 AM
considering ESO is not the type of MMO that'll hinder gametime in another space. 

Can someone translate this out of timecube into English for me? Because as a person who only operates on one plane, and has only so many hours to play games, any game I play hinders my game time in other games. That's kind of how time WORKS.
You won't be playing it much, so all that time you're not playing can be spent on other games.

Unfortunately, that's at odds with a subscription.  Easier to not spend the money and not pay to not play.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 17, 2014, 08:06:18 AM
The problem is that the only view most people have of the game came from stress tests limited to a single weekend at a time, usually forcing players to start over from level 1, and level capped to 15. So unless you were able to play the entire weekend, you never actually got out of the newbie areas. So everybody judged the game based upon the intro, leading to a shitstorm of negative opinion.

None of that excuses the fact that the intro isn't compelling, but like I said earlier, it's no worse than rift, LOTRO, TOR, FFXIV, or Wildstar. From what I've seen in streams, Wildstar's newbie experience is the same sort of soul-crushing on-rails dreary experience, just a bit more colorful, with less story, and Wildstar's "zaniness".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on February 17, 2014, 08:19:57 AM
It's absolutely worse than those. For one thing, none of them had a game breaking bug in it that prevented me from progressing three times in a row (Literally - nothing you can do, no way to progress. Logging in and out did nothing, neither did resetting the quest).



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 08:29:59 AM
What bothered me about the first few levels of TESO is that I didn't particularly like the intro area ("You are dead") so I waited for the next one and while it looked interesting at first, it turned out quite dull pretty soon. So I struggled to get to the next one, and once again, meh, lots of yawning. At this point I was just level 7 but I've already seen three areas and while I certainly was a bit biased against it, I really couldn't get the slightest bit of immersion. The areas -all the three of them- felt small and artificial, NPCs static and interesting as windup dolls, and so did the dungeons. I know for a fact it takes more than it did 10 years ago for these games to impress me, but daaaaaaaaamn this totally feels like post-Tortage Age of Conan (which I loved) but 6 years too late.

Seriously, no matter what "The Majority" thinks of EQ2, I loved it at launch, its areas were large and explorable and not stupidly hub-based. There were lots of "secrets" and lore findings to uncover, to the point that -laugh all you want- at the time I thought it felt like Morrowind online. It's crazy that ten years later we finally get an ESO mmorpg and it feels more on rails than EQ2 did.

I am all for finding that immersive, explorable content a few have been mentioning here and there, but assuming it really exists Zenimax is making it so difficult this time I might not make it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 08:32:52 AM
It's absolutely worse than those. For one thing, none of them had a game breaking bug in it that prevented me from progressing three times in a row (Literally - nothing you can do, no way to progress. Logging in and out did nothing, neither did resetting the quest).

Not to bash your opinion, but I don' tthink you can judge upcoming MMORPGs based on the bugs you find in the beta test. Good for you that you didn't get gamebreaking bugs in Wildstar, cause I did. Still my disliking of the game isn't based on that.

At the same time, I am sorry you got a gamebreaking bug in TESO, cause I didn't. Still, my disliking of the game isn't based on that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on February 17, 2014, 08:47:16 AM
The nature and severity of the bugs you encounter in a beta should be something you take into consideration.  I don't believe in miracle patches, and if you find something absolutely game breaking that slipped past unit testing and internal QA, I'd have a worse opinion of the game. 

Every game that I've beta tested that was a buggy piece of shit in beta ended up being a buggy piece of shit at launch.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 17, 2014, 09:04:40 AM
Exactly, betas aren't about fixing anything large anymore. It's about marketing, finding annoying things, stress testing, and tweaking systems.

If it's a large problem in a beta (like combat is in this game), it's way too late.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 09:46:49 AM
All I am saying is that he found a bug, I didn't. Or -reverse- I found a bug in Wildstar, someone else didn't. Cool/Uncool. Moving on. Content and design are common elements we can all discuss, but personal experience with bugs -moreso in a beta- are kind of irrelevant to the discussion about how fun or not this game will be. There's so much worth hating in this game that lingering on bugs seems to indicate everything else is actually OK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieC7TKxJN3s).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 17, 2014, 12:33:45 PM
NDA is lifted? Ok, then.

Boring looking game is boring. BORING. It plays a little like Skyrim mechanically except it's just DEAD BORING - partly because it's somehow not as pretty or involving as Skyrim and partly because there's all this MMOG level shit story questing stuff thrown on top of it. It plays like every fucking other MMOG I've played for the last decade and nothing it tried to sell me in the first hour I played felt in the least bit different from anything else I've played since the release of WoW.

It's not a bad game. Had it released in 2003, I might have given a shit. But we've DONE this. We've done this ad nauseum. For all its flaws (and there were many) Secret World was a better game than this because at least character creation/progression and the setting were somewhat unique amongst MMOG's. This? It's not even "Skyrim with other players." It's DAoC/WoW with Skyrim veneer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on February 17, 2014, 12:51:10 PM
Haem hits exactly how I felt. It's just really bland and BORING. It's not a bad game really, just very bland.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 17, 2014, 01:16:27 PM
DaoC/WoW is a real stretch. There is no /WoW element at all really. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 17, 2014, 01:27:57 PM
Well, there's a quest log and minimap.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Megrim on February 17, 2014, 02:01:53 PM
"B-b-buht the game gets better after you do the tutorial" isn't actually a thing. Hasn't been for a more than a decade.

I am in no way trying to defend TESO. Over many beta test sessions I only made it to level 7. It is quite unbearable. I really wanted to at least get to ten to try the PvP and I simply couldn't force myself to do it. This never happened to me before, not to this extent at least.

But at the same time I want to state once again that I had the same identical experience with Wildstar. Lots of people are head over heels about it but I challenge them to show me where the first 7 (or the first two hours) of Wildstar are in any way less boring or better designed than TESO.

Obviously personal taste plays a big role, so it's more than OK for people to just click with a kind of presentation and merrily slog through the n-th repetition of the first ten levels of WoW, but I wish more people were open to admit that fun and boring are often just a result of the right combination of lights and sounds, more than actual good or bad game design. The whole idea of "if this doesn't hook me in the first 5 minutes, then it's not going to" in a time with so many similar offers is a testament to this, and how we need for something intangible to tickle our pleasure centres and release bliss in our system or we are not gonna bother. Think about comics and how many times you rejected one because the first few pages, if not the cover, sucked for you.

I think the problem with TESO, on top of apparently being devoid of enough innovation to justify a replay for old players like us, is that its presentation -for some reason- is less than hot. It can be OK, sure, but it is so NOT exciting that you'd have to fool yourself to go on a second date with it/her/him. And you know you can easily find better things to do that night.

Wildstar is pretty much the same in the first 7 minutes/7 levels, but at least it presents itself as a cuter date to some. That alone will almost certainly win it more followers.

About the kiss of death, I honestly think it's the subscription model. Fuck that.

It sure sounds like you are trying to defend it. The, uh, constant passive-aggressive comparisons with Wildstar aren't exactly helping either.

We can wax all poetical about the definition of 'fun' and be philosophical about the 'wholistic game experience' or some shit, but at the end of the day what we have, is shovelware (if not physically, it is most certainly so intellectually). Worse still, people who've been around this circus for longer than a decade now (seriously, think about this), are still somehow unable to step back and be critical.

I mean, I was annoyed when I found out that BF4 servers are run at 10 tickrate (CS:GO runs at 100, for example) and this is because the devs thought that having "Levolution" and "server-constant water referencing" are more important than crisp rego for their players, and that higher tickrates would mean greater server loads - which EA rents out - so we can't have that, noooo. Yet people look at TESO and go "well the combat is floaty and shit, and the dungeons are retarded, and the graphics are soulless and the lore butchery would make Jack the Ripper break down, but if you squint really hard..."

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 17, 2014, 02:54:47 PM
It sure sounds like you are trying to defend it. The, uh, constant passive-aggressive comparisons with Wildstar aren't exactly helping either.

Well I am not. I don't like either games. I am saying that I feel the negative buzz for this game and the positive buzz for Wildstar make no sense. They are both absolutely utterly pathetically meh.

Sometimes people here mistake trying to have a reasonable discourse for fanboing. Unless you piss on something then you are rooting for it.
Maybe I could substitute "I don't like either games" with "I think these two games are fucking shit and I am afraid to get herpes just by typing about them", which would be more f13 and less passive aggressive I guess. Clear?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 17, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
I'm with you, I think Wildstar sucks too. They are different for reasons I can't really display with NDA on Wildstar, but they are similar in that I've played them both before, and one is slightly more polished.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on February 17, 2014, 03:25:17 PM
Haem hits exactly how I felt. It's just really bland and BORING. It's not a bad game really, just very bland.

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? Bland and boring makes for a bad game no?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 17, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
Well, you can have "competently executed" as praise, even if the product is boring. I felt like that about launch-state LoTRO. Fine, discontroversial, ultimately a fin execution of things I already knew how to do.

The problem is that the only view most people have of the game came from stress tests limited to a single weekend at a time, usually forcing players to start over from level 1, and level capped to 15. So unless you were able to play the entire weekend, you never actually got out of the newbie areas. So everybody judged the game based upon the intro, leading to a shitstorm of negative opinion.

None of that excuses the fact that the intro isn't compelling, but like I said earlier, it's no worse than rift, LOTRO, TOR, FFXIV, or Wildstar. From what I've seen in streams, Wildstar's newbie experience is the same sort of soul-crushing on-rails dreary experience, just a bit more colorful, with less story, and Wildstar's "zaniness".

True. But at least for Rift, LoTRO and TOR, the combat system kinda made up for some parts of that, and the aesthetic made up for other parts.

TESO doesn't seem to have either going for it in those first few levels.

Some people will power through it. Some people who've been playing MMOs since M59 will probably be among them. Some people here bitching about it may also end up powering through it simply because they have nothing better to do at the moment.

"eh, it's better than nothing" is not a strong driver of revenue :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on February 17, 2014, 05:29:30 PM
Well, you can have "competently executed" as praise, even if the product is boring.

For a game (or any entertainment product) I don't think it makes sense to say that something unfun is competently executed. If it's not fun then the developers have failed to execute the primary objective.

It's like saying that a movie that has an awful script and awful acting and is boring was shot in proper focus. "It's not bad, I didn't see a single boom mic drop in from the ceiling during the entire film!"

I get what you are saying, but I dislike the notion that the craft of game making should be evaluated separately from the art. And making a fun game is as much craft as art.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on February 17, 2014, 06:20:10 PM
I'd like to see Sam's post front paged as well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 18, 2014, 03:09:42 AM
I'm a day late for the NDA-has-dropped hate-train but I fully support said train.

Most of the criticisms I have for the beta have already been covered in this thread. I also didn't make it past about level 7 because it was so unpleasant to play. It wasn't just that it wasn't fun, it was actually actively unfun.

Playing Skyrim you arrive at the first main town (Whiterun) and it feels like a living place. NPCs wander about, chatting to each other, going about their jobs, doing different things depending on the time of day, kids run about the streets and it generally feels a lot like a real place. That illusion breaks if you look too closely of course but superficial impressions are highly immersive.

At no point when playing Skyrim did I think to myself "what this game needs is 200 player characters running about and jumping and emoting in these towns, swarming around the same vendors and quest givers and typing 'lol faggot wow plaers!' in general chat". Nor did I consider that having the entire world be motionless, sterile, dead, populated with immobile & silent NPCs and entirely grey or brown would be an improvement of any sort.

Age of Conan turned to shit at level 12, this is utter shit *until* level 12. Both approaches are made of 100% fail.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 18, 2014, 01:49:47 PM
Well, you can have "competently executed" as praise, even if the product is boring.

For a game (or any entertainment product) I don't think it makes sense to say that something unfun is competently executed. If it's not fun then the developers have failed to execute the primary objective.

It's like saying that a movie that has an awful script and awful acting and is boring was shot in proper focus. "It's not bad, I didn't see a single boom mic drop in from the ceiling during the entire film!"

I get what you are saying, but I dislike the notion that the craft of game making should be evaluated separately from the art. And making a fun game is as much craft as art.

I hear ya. But how many movies win technical awards even though they're boring or terrible otherwise? :-) I don't mean that flippantly either.

Many of the people on these projects will move on to other projects based on the skills they have, not on the success of the overall business. Character designers, world builders, texture artists, writers, sound designers, etc.* TESO may be a boring unfun experience in total, but some of things about it are valid experience for people on those career tracks.

* I only list these for example. I have no opinion on their output in TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on February 18, 2014, 03:21:33 PM
My little screed might not be useful for the front page, which seems to be trying to focus on, you know, less about what games not to play and more about what you should play and/or what you might want to do while playing them.

There's an interesting undercurrent of potential to find secret well-hidden fun buried in ESO by treating it like some kind of fun safari. Or something. Apparently just a lot of potentially fun things that seem hard to access or even painfully hidden from the get-go. You could write an article about that, but I wouldn't be able to help much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 19, 2014, 04:56:31 AM
There's an interesting undercurrent of potential to find secret well-hidden fun buried in ESO by treating it like some kind of fun safari. Or something. Apparently just a lot of potentially fun things that seem hard to access or even painfully hidden from the get-go. You could write an article about that, but I wouldn't be able to help much.

It's funny that you mention this.  The entire time I was beta testing ESO I felt like I was on a quest for well-hidden fun.  Sadly, I was unable to find any.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on February 20, 2014, 08:37:31 AM

At no point when playing Skyrim did I think to myself "what this game needs is 200 player characters running about and jumping and emoting in these towns, swarming around the same vendors and quest givers and typing 'lol faggot wow plaers!' in general chat". Nor did I consider that having the entire world be motionless, sterile, dead, populated with immobile & silent NPCs and entirely grey or brown would be an improvement of any sort.

Age of Conan turned to shit at level 12, this is utter shit *until* level 12. Both approaches are made of 100% fail.

This, oh god so much, this.  I feel like this game has revealed I am misanthrope who is uninterested in meeting "new people" in an MMO, because almost all of them are stupid, mean, crazy, incompetent, or a heady mixture of all of the above.  The word I used to describe the world is "sterile," there is literally zero emotional connection with anything, the storytelling is just god awful.

The thing that makes Elder scrolls so awesome and unique is that after you are out of the first dungeon, you can literally go anywhere and find something to do.  there is a whole interesting world to explore.  This game removed the most important aspect of the series.

My wife is going to make me play this game because she loves elder scrolls and I am seriously concerned that it may do irreparable harm to our relationship.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 20, 2014, 10:16:30 AM
My wife is going to make me play this game because she loves elder scrolls and I am seriously concerned that it may do irreparable harm to our relationship.   
I can see loving Elder Scrolls, but why does that make her want to play this?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 20, 2014, 10:23:35 AM
My wife is going to make me play this game because she loves elder scrolls and I am seriously concerned that it may do irreparable harm to our relationship.   
I can see loving Elder Scrolls, but why does that make her want to play this?

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 20, 2014, 12:06:28 PM
Haem hits exactly how I felt. It's just really bland and BORING. It's not a bad game really, just very bland.

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? Bland and boring makes for a bad game no?

Well, it makes for a boring game. A bad game is one that's not only not fun to play, but functionally shit as well - like most MMOG's on release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sobelius on February 20, 2014, 03:06:29 PM
For me, most new MMOs are most interesting during the period when I'm exploring the world and learning the game's various subsystems.  So far over the beta weekends I've done a lot of lockpicking and crafting (not the high levels of either, but enough to get a good feel for both), as well as combat through about level 12 (melee, ranged as well as attack and healing spells). Haven't touched the PvP since it's not a big draw for me. Pretty sad when I felt the only thing I really got excited about was getting to rank 2 in the mage's guild and learning the Mage Light skill -- indoors, the dynamic lighting effects of that little orbiting globe made me smile. Still, I'm willing to give it a go for a while upon release. I'm not looking for a game that will somehow be the end-all-be-all of games -- my bar is set low enough that I can enjoy what it has to offer. All I expect is to be entertained for a few weeks, not months or years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 20, 2014, 03:07:39 PM
Oh yeah, that reminds me, the Oblivion-like instead of Skyrim-like lockpicking didn't really please me either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 20, 2014, 07:42:35 PM
Oh yeah, that reminds me, the Oblivion-like instead of Skyrim-like lockpicking didn't really please me either.

Yep that was a good place where you can see when they started making this game.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on February 21, 2014, 06:34:47 AM
I played past level 10 in one of the previous beta weekends, and one of my cousins who is a gigantic TES sperg played all 3 factions well over level 10 in the most recent weekend.

We both agreed this game is generally shit and will be a disaster. It'll make people who're big TES fans angry because it kinda shits all over the lore and all of the crazy/fantastic areas that have been described in all of the lore repeatedly have gotten a really milquetoast generic fantasy RPG look for their big reveal in a video game.

Combat is jank, kinda unresponsive, and first-person view is worthless for staying out of the fire. Crafting isn't terribly interesting. Interface isn't very good. Characters look okay while armor looks just about 100% retarded, environments are okay-ish but not really interesting. It's a boring butter sandwich of an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 21, 2014, 06:39:24 AM
Fabricated last message echeos pretty much 100% what we've been saying since we first heard about this game. I am pretty sure we can go back to the first page of this thread and read exactly those kind of concerns and predictions. So I think it's fair to say that for once, probably the first time ever, a long-anticipated MMORPG hasn't failed expectations one bit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Crumbs on February 21, 2014, 06:51:13 AM
I played past level 10 in one of the previous beta weekends, and one of my cousins who is a gigantic TES sperg played all 3 factions well over level 10 in the most recent weekend.

We both agreed this game is generally shit and will be a disaster. It'll make people who're big TES fans angry because it kinda shits all over the lore and all of the crazy/fantastic areas that have been described in all of the lore repeatedly have gotten a really milquetoast generic fantasy RPG look for their big reveal in a video game.

Combat is jank, kinda unresponsive, and first-person view is worthless for staying out of the fire. Crafting isn't terribly interesting. Interface isn't very good. Characters look okay while armor looks just about 100% retarded, environments are okay-ish but not really interesting. It's a boring butter sandwich of an MMO.

There were some SWTOR ads at launch that literally covered the sides of buildings in Los Angeles.  I'd wager those would make the front page of any humor website now.  Note to self:  take pictures of the building-sized TESO ads. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 21, 2014, 09:52:58 AM
So I think it's fair to say that for once, probably the first time ever, a long-anticipated MMORPG hasn't failed expectations one bit.

This game has matched every bit of expectation I had for it - that may truly be a first for MMOG's.

Of course, my expectations were negative, but... MMOG's.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 21, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
TESO: Exactly as bad as expected!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on February 21, 2014, 01:42:44 PM
TESO: Exactly as bad as expected!

Yep. Though, I feel as if I might be the only one here remotely looking forward to it.  :?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 21, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
TESO: Exactly as bad as expected!

Yep. Though, I feel as if I might be the only one here remotely looking forward to it.  :?

I have it preordered (for the pvp or so I keep telling myself)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on February 21, 2014, 02:03:51 PM
Where did Blackwulf go???  :headscratch:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 21, 2014, 02:06:07 PM
They probably ran out of money to pay him to shill. It's all going to bug-busting now.  :rofl:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tmon on February 21, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
This discussion has done nothing to make me think I should buy this game, but it does have me thinking I should have bought Skryim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on February 21, 2014, 02:22:02 PM
You can easily correct the Skyrim oversight via Steam!

If you wait long enough, it'll go even go on sale.  Although, I did buy the base game for $40, and haven't regretted that purchase in the slightest.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 21, 2014, 03:12:32 PM
This discussion has done nothing to make me think I should buy this game, but it does have me thinking I should have bought Skryim.

Heh- I am working on figuring out which are the essential mods for me before I start playing it again. Loaded it briefly- I had forgotten how pretty it is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on February 21, 2014, 03:20:52 PM
I really should try Skyrim with some mods.  I've never tried any.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 21, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
I am going to start with basic quality of life stuff- UI improvements and some graphic tweaks. I want to leave the core gameplay alone, at least until I figure out which parts annoy me enough to have them changed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on February 21, 2014, 03:52:32 PM
So, anything related to magic then?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 21, 2014, 03:58:25 PM
Heh- not sure. I only have about 5 hours of game play under my belt, so I haven't learned what to hate yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 21, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
I really should try Skyrim with some mods.  I've never tried any.

You should. Steam facilitates this nicely if you can get past the fact that 60% of them are for pervos.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 21, 2014, 05:29:59 PM
Yes definitely. I stayed away from mods until Steam made it so easy it's really worth it. You'll still run into incompatibilities occasionally, but just do the usual trail and error of de/re-activating.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 21, 2014, 05:33:25 PM
Just ask rk47 what mods he uses.

Then put those on your list of mods you never want to install.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 21, 2014, 05:37:38 PM
There's a good one I like that makes the lore books glow blue and the skill up books glow orange until read.  Recommended.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on February 22, 2014, 02:25:20 AM
I really should try Skyrim with some mods.  I've never tried any.

You should. Steam facilitates this nicely if you can get past the fact that 60% of them are for pervos.

If you're referring to the Workshop on Steam, it's pretty much garbage and shouldn't be used.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 22, 2014, 02:52:18 AM
I would recommend nexus for any skyrim mods. If you install their mod manager it's almost as effortless as steam and you can install BOSS load order there which will autosort most of the mods saving you from lots and lots of frustration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on February 22, 2014, 05:15:28 AM
I really should try Skyrim with some mods.  I've never tried any.

You should. Steam facilitates this nicely if you can get past the fact that 60% of them are for pervos.

If you're referring to the Workshop on Steam, it's pretty much garbage and shouldn't be used.
Workshop is good for some games, like torchlight, but terrible for any big customizations.  The limit to mod size means all of the cooler Skyrim mods can't be hosted there. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 22, 2014, 06:50:16 AM
I found Workshop worked for me just fine in Skyrim. I suppose one "graduates" from that to something more advanced. And I'm sure that it's "easy" to folks who've been using it for awhile. But if you're just starting out in Skyrim at all, wouldn't jumping to advanced modding be akin to studying endgame tier 3 raid templates the first day you ever played an MMO?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 22, 2014, 07:50:26 AM
If you're referring to the Workshop on Steam, it's pretty much garbage and shouldn't be used.

I meant more that it's easy to mod things on Steam. It doesn't get in the way. The Workshop isn't something I've used a bunch, but I mod M&B like crazy with no issues.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on February 22, 2014, 08:09:14 AM
I would recommend nexus for any skyrim mods. If you install their mod manager it's almost as effortless as steam and you can install BOSS load order there which will autosort most of the mods saving you from lots and lots of frustration.

I'll vouch for this approach too.

Install Nexus Mod Manager & BOSS, browse the Nexus (http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/?) and click the "Install with NMM" button on any mods you like the look of, run BOSS before launching the game.

I started off thinking I'd just make a few tweaks and bugfixes etc, and am now running about 60 mods...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on February 22, 2014, 09:33:39 AM
I really should try Skyrim with some mods.  I've never tried any.

You should. Steam facilitates this nicely if you can get past the fact that 60% of them are for pervos.

If you're referring to the Workshop on Steam, it's pretty much garbage and shouldn't be used.
Workshop is good for some games, like torchlight, but terrible for any big customizations.  The limit to mod size means all of the cooler Skyrim mods can't be hosted there.

Oh totally. I meant for just Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on February 23, 2014, 07:36:36 AM
A couple of actual gameplay-related questions:

(1)  I keep hearing people mention (in passing) that everyone can sneak.  Is that the same as saying every class has stealth?  If ranged glass cannons, et al. can (full invis) stealth that seems- unbalanced in pvp.

(2)  Is there any way for attackers to get in a keep without breaching the gate/walls?  I realize that would break sieges if everyone could do it, but I was hoping for a nightblade "scale wall" skill.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 23, 2014, 07:50:13 AM
A couple of actual gameplay-related questions:

(1)  I keep hearing people mention (in passing) that everyone can sneak.  Is that the same as saying every class has stealth?  If ranged glass cannons, et al. can (full invis) stealth that seems- unbalanced in pvp.

(2)  Is there any way for attackers to get in a keep without breaching the gate/walls?  I realize that would break sieges if everyone could do it, but I was hoping for a nightblade "scale wall" skill.

As far as I know...

1) the stealth is just like in Skyrim with modifiers affecting how effective it is. There is some invisibility stuff apart from the stealth thing

2) nothing like that. It there was everyone would go nb for pvp (if they cared about it).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 23, 2014, 07:54:24 AM
A couple of actual gameplay-related questions:

(1)  I keep hearing people mention (in passing) that everyone can sneak.  Is that the same as saying every class has stealth?  If ranged glass cannons, et al. can (full invis) stealth that seems- unbalanced in pvp.

(2)  Is there any way for attackers to get in a keep without breaching the gate/walls?  I realize that would break sieges if everyone could do it, but I was hoping for a nightblade "scale wall" skill.

Stealth works the way stealth should, it is only effective when approaching someone from behind.  From the front people can see you quite a distance away.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 23, 2014, 10:21:16 AM
Stealth also drains your stamina, depending on how quickly you move. So you can't stay in stealth for extended periods of time either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 24, 2014, 04:27:35 AM
It seems that Zenimax is starting to agree  (http://www.tentonhammer.com/news/elder-scrolls-online-drops-starter-islands)that the "starting islands" are doing a disservice to the game.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on February 24, 2014, 05:39:00 AM
Where did Blackwulf go???  :headscratch:

Oh, I still pop in from time to time to read a couple threads here, but really life's too short to try to convince a bunch of old neckbeards to like a game I like!  I have to note that you ask that question rather smugly as though you think I've been wrong all along, and probably changed my mind.  I have to ask, do you guys only read these forums?  You all seem very out of touch.  General opinions about TESO have done a 180 after the last couple of weekend betas - they had 2.5 million people in the last weekend, and received largely positive feedback (aside from the 'stress' part of the beta!)

The devs ARE listening to our feedback:  The next beta will feature collision detection via the Havok engine in an attempt to alleviate the complaints about combat feeling "floaty" and they've changed the way the game starts:
Quote
In order to give new characters more freedom of choice, we’ve made a change to the way that characters move between the early zones. With this change, after you complete the tutorial and escape from Coldharbour, you will now arrive in the starting city for your alliance. You will have the option to visit the original starting areas, or just go forth and start adventuring immediately. Content in and around each of these cities has been adjusted to be more easily performed by characters of levels 3-6.

Overall, the game is incredibly deep and if you only gave it a couple of hours before deciding it's boring, then you've done yourself a disservice.  Have you guys even tried the pvp?  If not, there are hundreds of player made videos out now.  Here's a particularly fun (and not very long) one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s29KvfHwYqk&feature=youtu.be

My motivation for "shilling" a game has always been to try to get people to see what I like about a game, and join me in playing it.  I'm not altruistic - the reason I do this, I'm sure, is because I want the game to do well enough that it stays open for me and my guild to continue enjoying it.  I'm no longer worried about that, because it is selling extremely well, and the various fan communities are swelling like crazy.  I'm confident that 90% of you will end up buying this game, and I think most of you will enjoy it more and more as you play it.  So, see you in game!

PS - latest patch notes if anyone is interested:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 24, 2014, 05:44:48 AM
I have to ask, do you guys only read these forums?  You all seem very out of touch.  General opinions about TESO have done a 180 after the last couple of weekend betas - they had 2.5 million people in the last weekend, and received largely positive feedback (aside from the 'stress' part of the beta!)

I'm sure I can speak for others when I say that yes, we do read other forums/sites.  Problem is, that the kind of blind optimism that we see elsewhere is exactly the pablum we've seen in other MMO's for... well... as long as there have been MMO's.  It doesn't interest me what the masses say about ESO.  The masses get excited about Bieber and the latest Hip Hop fads.  I'm interested in what this forum has to say because they are generally more in-tune to what I prefer in a game.

Having tested ESO myself over 4 separate weekends, I can state that the folks here are pretty spot on in their assessment.  ESO is an opportunity wasted that will only serve to disappoint the hardcore Elder Scrolls fans. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 24, 2014, 06:03:09 AM
In order to make the world feel more substantial, you will now collide with NPCs, including collision with NPCs in combat.

Awesome!

Please note that this will not affect PvP combat with other players; collision is only on NPCs.

Pathetic.

These people just don't get it.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 24, 2014, 06:05:58 AM
That is so ass backwards and a horrendous waste of bandwidth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on February 24, 2014, 06:40:58 AM
So they're just making all of those lackluster newbie zones optional?  Wow that's a dramatic move but I guess the only one they could do considering they have just a month before launch.

Do you think mmo developers make the same mistakes each time out of spite or is it really that hard to fix?  If you're in closed testing for too long where only employees, friends and the most hardcore fans you've invited can play you won't get enough criticism.  These starter islands must have been the first ones played and the most tested so how on earth didn't they realize they kinda suck?  Not until it had a wider release for the stress tests and people started complaining did it dawn on them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2014, 06:49:00 AM
Collision was one of the things I posted on the beta forums that I wanted, along with a better starting experience. So, it's good they finally addressed that. It's silly they didn't address it with players for PvP purposes. The idea that a player can just run right through you is moronic.

I still don't think the combat is fixable at this stage, nor will the first person view work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on February 24, 2014, 07:10:37 AM
The only place I know of where feedback has been generally positive is Penny Arcade, and I'm fairly sure that's because the moderation on their site prevents people from complaining in a thread about a game.

Everywhere else, without exception, I see nothing but misery and condemnation for this dull, shit stain of a game. Even the old EQ boards I still frequent think it's a sad joke.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 24, 2014, 07:15:03 AM
Collision was one of the things I posted on the beta forums that I wanted, along with a better starting experience. So, it's good they finally addressed that. It's silly they didn't address it with players for PvP purposes. The idea that a player can just run right through you is moronic.

I still don't think the combat is fixable at this stage, nor will the first person view work.

While pvp collision detection would be great it would open up a whole bag of (grief) worms and make any lag issues really terrible (nevermind how many bugs the system would have given the late stage they are adding it into the game)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 24, 2014, 08:34:55 AM
Collision was one of the things I posted on the beta forums that I wanted, along with a better starting experience. So, it's good they finally addressed that. It's silly they didn't address it with players for PvP purposes. The idea that a player can just run right through you is moronic.

I still don't think the combat is fixable at this stage, nor will the first person view work.

First person will never work in games like this. As far as collision in PVP, it's got to be a performance thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 24, 2014, 09:08:05 AM
It has to be a performance thing, because collision detection has been a thing in many, many PvP games before this one. In fact, it is usually the opposite: it's off in PvE but on in PvP. Anyway, this is shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 24, 2014, 09:09:25 AM
Also makes you wonder how much of the positional data is client side.  That's going to make a mess of PvP as well as soon as people learn how to manipulate it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 24, 2014, 10:14:04 AM
PVP collision would be a griefing nightmare, I'm not really surprised it doesn't have it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2014, 10:15:41 AM
PVP collision would be a griefing nightmare, I'm not really surprised it doesn't have it.

Would it be impossible to just have enemy pvp collision?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 24, 2014, 10:23:19 AM
PvP collision is in many PvP games and MMOs specifically and it's not a griefing nightmare, except for stuff like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rl3RPC_Mw) which was greatly appreciated anyway. Seriously, body blocking is part of those games and it's usually a meaningful, valuable combat mechanic. I am sure they are just terrified at the servers trying to detect player collisions during 100v100v100 siege battles.

EDIT: I found this statement from Brian Wheeler, the PvP lead of TESO.

Quote
Collision Detection

"Having worked on games with player collision in PVP before, we found that it was far more valuable to offer players larger battles with better server and client performance than smaller battles with player collision due to the hit servers and clients take when implementing such a feature."



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on February 24, 2014, 11:01:35 AM
I think you meant 150v100v50.

Having played DAoC, the sides are never 100v100v100.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on February 24, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
If the PvP area is in its own instance, then the sides can be regulated to a degree.  In DAoC, there was no regulation at all on the number each side could bring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 24, 2014, 11:19:00 AM
I guess if the collision detection is enemy-only (and only if you're both flagged ideally - I can't remember if this game has world pvp as well as the frontier stuff) that would help a lot.  Seems like the sort of thing where exploits might exist, but yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on February 24, 2014, 11:24:00 AM
NPC collision can be checked client-side, because if you decide to cheat it, who gives a shit?

PvP collision must be done on the server.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 24, 2014, 02:16:46 PM
Collision was one of the things I posted on the beta forums that I wanted, along with a better starting experience. So, it's good they finally addressed that. It's silly they didn't address it with players for PvP purposes. The idea that a player can just run right through you is moronic.

I still don't think the combat is fixable at this stage, nor will the first person view work.

First person will never work in games like this. As far as collision in PVP, it's got to be a performance thing.

In pve I played the beta in 1st person.  Not since EQ have I done that.  Gives me the Elder Scrolls feel.  Now pvp or some instance?  Yeah I'll go to over the shoulder but you're way off base saying it will never work.  I imagine there are many folks like me who will pve in 1st person.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on February 24, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
Were I to play this game, it would be in 1st person. It's the only 1st person MMOG that's worked for me since EQ1.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on February 24, 2014, 03:04:57 PM
To be honest, from a simple lag and performance angle, I am sympathetic to them saying that it would adversely effect performance if they had player collision detection and I'd rather have a smoother game than a lag fest. I can also see how it makes combat a bit crappy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on February 24, 2014, 04:40:39 PM
Do you think mmo developers make the same mistakes each time out of spite or is it really that hard to fix?  If you're in closed testing for too long where only employees, friends and the most hardcore fans you've invited can play you won't get enough criticism.  These starter islands must have been the first ones played and the most tested so how on earth didn't they realize they kinda suck?  Not until it had a wider release for the stress tests and people started complaining did it dawn on them.

I think it's development interia and a combination of your first and second sentence. It's very easy to convince yourself you're on the right path when nobody is telling you you're wrong.

It's also very easy to do that until way after the point you can make substantial changes. I mean seriously, a month before launch, their only option was to go nuclear on the starter islands. So you can totally imagine the kind of internal conversations they had:

But it's all done!
But it sucks and we're losing the argument with the public
But we spent all this time/money/people on it!
But. It. Sucks. And. We're. Losing. The. Argument. With. The. Public.

I'm just curious if anyone will be around for an internal post mortem or if the dev team is already in the process of scattering so the live team catches all the heat (and can hide behind the "we didn't build it").


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on February 24, 2014, 06:48:56 PM
Nah, it's just spite.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 24, 2014, 08:13:47 PM
I'm just curious if anyone will be around for an internal post mortem or if the dev team is already in the process of scattering so the live team catches all the heat (and can hide behind the "we didn't build it").

It was viable to cut bait on this project 18 months ago when we were saying it was a turd. They decided not to do that because it would mean shutting down the whole studio that existed just for making this disaster. In the process they've likely wasted $50M at least.

Bethesda won't let anybody get away from this clean when it ends up flopping. They distanced themselves from the beginning by not doing it themselves, and letting Zenimax take the hit. Bethesda will bury them so it doesn't destroy the franchise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 24, 2014, 08:35:44 PM

Overall, the game is incredibly deep and if you only gave it a couple of hours before deciding it's boring, then you've done yourself a disservice.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/829607/HUMOR/sochibear5.png)A TOAST MY BROTHERS!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 24, 2014, 08:41:00 PM
Just ask rk47 what mods he uses.

Then put those on your list of mods you never want to install.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/829607/daily/26/002.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on February 24, 2014, 11:06:22 PM
In FFXI when you run into another player they block you, but if you push against them for a second or so you go through them. This makes it feel like the people have weight without allowing for griefing.

FFXI is like ten years old now.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on February 24, 2014, 11:19:12 PM
Make PVP-player-blocking a skill that drains stamina.

Give a player a 'blocked' debuff or something along those lines.

Give that debuff the same diminishing returns that you would give a mez or stun.

Carry on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on February 24, 2014, 11:44:42 PM
In FFXI when you run into another player they block you, but if you push against them for a second or so you go through them. This makes it feel like the people have weight without allowing for griefing.

FFXI is like ten years old now.
UO had something like that too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 25, 2014, 01:14:19 AM
It seems to me that making design decisions for your MMO game based on the extremely unlikely occurrence of giant 100v100v100 pvp battles (or whatever they are trying to pull off) is complete and utter folly.  As much as some of us think we want to participate in such events, it is simply not going to happen with any frequency in the real world. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on February 25, 2014, 01:20:53 AM
It seems to me that making design decisions for your MMO game based on the extremely unlikely occurrence of giant 100v100v100 pvp battles (or whatever they are trying to pull off) is complete and utter folly.  As much as some of us think we want to participate in such events, it is simply not going to happen with any frequency in the real world. 

I'm sure GW2 thought that large-scale pvp wasn't likely to happen that often and the culling in rvr was just fine the way it was when the game launched...  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MediumHigh on February 25, 2014, 01:52:41 AM
SPVP failed to carry a lot of the slack. So WvW pretty much served as the go to for anyone interested in pvp. If Anet gave the PVP crowd what it wanted from the beginning WvW would have been left to the pubs and people interested in hardcore rvr, which is a relatively small number considering the issues that generally arrive with a 24 hour format.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 25, 2014, 01:57:25 AM
Seriously, GW2 showed what many already knew: that as long as it is consensual and equalized (all chars boosted to max level) there is and there was a market for large scale open world PvP, sieges and the likes. Not saying any AAA title could survive just on that, but it's a feature that has been succesful in GW2 and on some servers still forced you in a queue many months after launch.

You know what will prevent the same thing from happening in TESO? Monthly fee.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MediumHigh on February 25, 2014, 02:23:12 AM
And PVD


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 25, 2014, 06:27:46 AM
That there is one recent game out there that managed to pull off some large scale PvP does not mean that it makes sense for all other developers to attempt the same thing.  There is a very finite audience for that shit, and you are fooling yourselves if you think otherwise.  I have no doubt that the internal sales pitch for TESO is banking on a million subs or more (they are insane, obviously), and there is no way even a tenth of that mythical audience is going to regularly get into large scale PvP.  Not even if it is "good", whatever the fuck that means.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 25, 2014, 06:51:48 AM
Look, TESO didn't do massive three way PvP because GW2 did it and it was popular. They did it because Matt Firor of DAoC is the lead, and he probably convinced some people that there was an audience for that way before they even knew about GW2 (Development started in 2009). It's OK if they can't make collision detection in massive battles if everything else is fun, but it's still a bummer. Also, since you probably didn't read my previous post:

Quote
Not saying any AAA title could survive just on that, but it's a feature that has been succesful in GW2 and on some servers still forced you in a queue many months after launch.

Meaning there is enough of an audience to consider it a viable addition to your new MMORPG. And GW2 was pulling large numbers because that audience is bigger than you think and maybe bigger than they thought. The reasons numbers started to fall were a) the dreaded culling monster. When they fixed it too many had already left. And b) lack of metagame and long term motivation, and "matches" were too often pointless and lopsided.

TESO on the other hand is putting this extra featrue behind a pay wall so chances are it will just never take off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on February 25, 2014, 07:19:15 AM
Sure, you may well be right about that.  My point, however, is that you shouldn't make decisions on things like collision detection based on the unlikely event that you are going to attract a bazillion hardcore large scale PvP fanatics (and that they will actually stick around).  When 95% or more of a player's time spent in game is PvE, then you build it around what makes PvE fun.  If they don't make the PvE fun, then the game dead in the water from the word go.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 25, 2014, 07:28:28 AM
Make PVP-player-blocking a skill that drains stamina.

Give a player a 'blocked' debuff or something along those lines.

Give that debuff the same diminishing returns that you would give a mez or stun.

Carry on.

Honestly, actual body blocking and collision detection is one of the things I think would make tanking more fun. Right now it's about esoteric button mashing and older than dirt taunt mechanics. What if it was actually about holding a line with several melee players to keep your healers/casters safe behind you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 25, 2014, 07:42:28 AM
Exactly. I could quote better examples but to summon one I am sure many remember around here, Warhammer Online did it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tmon on February 25, 2014, 08:14:46 AM
TESO on the other hand is putting this extra featrue behind a pay wall so chances are it will just never take off.

Aren't they also putting it behind a level wall?  The thing I liked about GW2 was that you could PVP almost as soon as you created your character.  Sure your level 1 boosted to 80 character is not nearly the equal of a fully leveled and geared out 80 but you can still join the zerg and contribute something.  Buying a box, paying a sub, playing for 5-7 hours to get to the 'fun' and level blocked PVP just seem so outdated to me, that I can't fathom anyone thinking the model makes business sense in today's market.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 25, 2014, 08:18:38 AM
Collision was one of the things I posted on the beta forums that I wanted, along with a better starting experience. So, it's good they finally addressed that. It's silly they didn't address it with players for PvP purposes. The idea that a player can just run right through you is moronic.

I still don't think the combat is fixable at this stage, nor will the first person view work.

First person will never work in games like this. As far as collision in PVP, it's got to be a performance thing.

In pve I played the beta in 1st person.  Not since EQ have I done that.  Gives me the Elder Scrolls feel.  Now pvp or some instance?  Yeah I'll go to over the shoulder but you're way off base saying it will never work.  I imagine there are many folks like me who will pve in 1st person.

I'm not saying people won't do it, I'm saying those people will be akin to window lickers and keyboard turners. The game is not designed for it. It's hard to not stand in the fire, if you can't see the fire. Your Field of View needs be much wider in group situations.

I mean you can do it, but you're gimping yourself. If you don't mind doing that and you enjoy the experience, more power to you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 25, 2014, 08:50:15 AM
TESO on the other hand is putting this extra featrue behind a pay wall so chances are it will just never take off.

Aren't they also putting it behind a level wall?  The thing I liked about GW2 was that you could PVP almost as soon as you created your character.  Sure your level 1 boosted to 80 character is not nearly the equal of a fully leveled and geared out 80 but you can still join the zerg and contribute something.  Buying a box, paying a sub, playing for 5-7 hours to get to the 'fun' and level blocked PVP just seem so outdated to me, that I can't fathom anyone thinking the model makes business sense in today's market.

You can get to the frontiers at Level 10 in TESO and as in GW2 you get boosted to max level. Supposedly level 10 should be early enough but, I agree with you, turns out it takes more than many can stomach. Based on the most recent beta patch they are speeding up the first ten levels so maybe people will be able to experience PvP a little sooner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 25, 2014, 08:58:43 AM
It seems to me that making design decisions for your MMO game based on the extremely unlikely occurrence of giant 100v100v100 pvp battles (or whatever they are trying to pull off) is complete and utter folly.  As much as some of us think we want to participate in such events, it is simply not going to happen with any frequency in the real world. 

Hmm, it is actually what happens 99% of the time.  Small fights is what is incredibly rare.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 25, 2014, 10:11:49 AM
Make PVP-player-blocking a skill that drains stamina.

Give a player a 'blocked' debuff or something along those lines.

Give that debuff the same diminishing returns that you would give a mez or stun.

Carry on.

Honestly, actual body blocking and collision detection is one of the things I think would make tanking more fun. Right now it's about esoteric button mashing and older than dirt taunt mechanics. What if it was actually about holding a line with several melee players to keep your healers/casters safe behind you?

That's actually what I loved about AoC; especially playing Conqueror.  The game revolved around positional tactics. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 25, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
That's actually what I loved about AoC; especially playing Conqueror.  The game revolved around positional tactics. 

All I remember about AoC was the "jousting" of melee due to the combos.  I never played PvP once that issue was fixed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 25, 2014, 10:40:34 AM
My fondest memory of AoC was this legendary video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rl3RPC_Mw

Warning, loud yakety sax music.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on February 25, 2014, 11:04:19 AM
My fondest memory of AoC was this legendary video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rl3RPC_Mw

Warning, loud yakety sax music.

That seems like only yesterday.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on February 25, 2014, 11:06:43 AM
I think a good compromise for collision detection in pvp would be to turn it on for shield users and leave it off for everyone else.  This lets people actually be tanks in pvp and do things like hold the line or clog a choke point while not being as bandwidth intensive as turning it on for everyone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 25, 2014, 12:03:00 PM
So I got a beta invite again, this time with "bring your buddy". I can't remember if previous Betas had that but it sort of stinks of desperation to me. Not to mention, why have a beta such a short time before release?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on February 25, 2014, 01:02:08 PM
To show off the new and improved starting experience?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 25, 2014, 01:23:43 PM
Actually, this beta doesn't have the new starting stuff. It's purely a stress test. They talk about more betas too, so I would expect at least one in March.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 25, 2014, 02:08:53 PM
So I got a beta invite again, this time with "bring your buddy". I can't remember if previous Betas had that but it sort of stinks of desperation to me. Not to mention, why have a beta such a short time before release?

But it comes with a monkey!

http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 25, 2014, 03:12:33 PM
That's insulting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on February 25, 2014, 05:47:56 PM
So I got a beta invite again, this time with "bring your buddy". I can't remember if previous Betas had that but it sort of stinks of desperation to me. Not to mention, why have a beta such a short time before release?

But it comes with a monkey!

http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th)
Spoilers: The Monkey


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on February 25, 2014, 06:06:16 PM
So I got a beta invite again, this time with "bring your buddy". I can't remember if previous Betas had that but it sort of stinks of desperation to me. Not to mention, why have a beta such a short time before release?

But it comes with a monkey!

http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/02/25/new-beta-invites--february-25th)
Spoilers: The Monkey

Fixed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 25, 2014, 06:08:35 PM
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on February 25, 2014, 07:56:09 PM
I got one of those bring a friend invites, too.  No one sounds as if they want to try it, though.  Or maybe I'm out of friends which means it's time to start writing men in prison again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 26, 2014, 05:42:50 AM
Prisoners would enjoy this beta.  You spend your first 30 mins breaking out of a scripted prison.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 26, 2014, 05:46:37 AM
If anyone wants to be my friend and get the extra key, let me know.  Or, if you want to shun me, there's some free keys available here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/giveaways.cfm/offer/498/Elder-Scrolls-Online-Beta-Key-Giveaway.html


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 26, 2014, 06:06:24 AM
My buddy who I used to play UO with wants to play this game, so I'm buying it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on February 26, 2014, 11:12:15 AM
Grabbed one of the free beta keys. Even the German registration pages look shitty, uninspired and lazy. I had flashbacks to the late 90s. We will see how this goes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on February 26, 2014, 11:13:35 AM
Interesting. If you switch focus while the installer is running, it simply stops.

Horrible font on the launcher. But hey, downloading at 5-6 mB/s. Nicely enough, it keeps downloading even when not in focus.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on February 26, 2014, 11:27:22 AM
Horrible font on the launcher. But hey, downloading at 5-6 mB/s. Nicely enough, it keeps downloading even when not in focus.

What it does though, is take up almost ALL of my bandwith. Which I should have more than enough off. It is an unlimited torrent download, isn't it ?

edit: So you CAN limit the download if you manage to find the correct button. You can then select: unlimited, 5 mB/s or 10 mB/s.
       Picking 5mB/s limits the download to 250-300 kB/s. Awesome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on February 26, 2014, 12:43:19 PM
My buddy who I used to play UO with wants to play this game, so I'm buying it.
Who? Who? Elv'eng? Videric?? Burrator???


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 26, 2014, 01:50:04 PM
My buddy who I used to play UO with wants to play this game, so I'm buying it.
Who? Who? Elv'eng? Videric?? Burrator???

Ogodei, also known as Narak.

Videric says he will play when it goes free, or if I play for a bit and report that it's worth paying for:)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on February 26, 2014, 02:46:27 PM
"Login Service failed. ALT=Ok"

I press ALT for ok ? This does not bode well for the game. I assume server maintenance, not that one of the TWO launchers mentioned anything about it in the news feed.

edit: Oh. Now it tells me Beta starts at the 28th. Yay!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 26, 2014, 03:37:26 PM
Prisoners would enjoy this beta.  You spend your first 30 mins breaking out of a scripted prison.

"I don't know...can't you just throw me in the hole again? I don't think I can face logging in again..."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 27, 2014, 06:14:13 AM
"Login Service failed. ALT=Ok"

I press ALT for ok ? This does not bode well for the game. I assume server maintenance, not that one of the TWO launchers mentioned anything about it in the news feed.

edit: Oh. Now it tells me Beta starts at the 28th. Yay!

Not that TESO doesn't deserve to get poked at, but this seems silly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 28, 2014, 05:52:00 AM
"Login Service failed. ALT=Ok"

I press ALT for ok ?

Needs to be translated into console-ese.  "Press X for ok"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on February 28, 2014, 08:27:36 AM
Yeah, the consolitis is strong in ESO. I would accept that if they allowed me to play with a controller! But no, there is no controller support unless you hack it yourself with xpadder. Steam controller can't come soon enough.

Console release dates are June, but they are likely to slip. Possibly forever, like all other non-Sony MMOs promising console versions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on February 28, 2014, 10:30:24 AM
With Dark Souls 2 coming out in a few weeks, there's not a chance in hell I'd buy this game... or any Elder Scrolls IP when put up against *Souls.   MMO (which ESO is barely) or not.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on February 28, 2014, 10:30:47 AM
Not that TESO doesn't deserve to get poked at, but this seems silly.
I was more annoyed with myself that I did not notice when the beta actually started. But I can see how my edit translated that poorly  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 28, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
I have a key if anyone wants it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 28, 2014, 04:22:49 PM
My buddy wanted to give me a key to possibly entice me to play it at launch with him (despite my best efforts, he insists on playing it). I don't think I would play at launch if someone gave me a free copy and a lifetime sub.

Well, maybe I would at least log in to make fun of it then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 28, 2014, 04:57:08 PM
Everyone keeps saying how bad the first few minutes of the game are, and while today I was going through it for what I think is the sixth time, it hit me that the introduction to the game -seriously the first three minutes- are really TERRIBLE. I mean, in general, for a generic, free to play low budget game they could be OK. But when you think about The Elder Scrolls, it's hard to swallow that they couldn't come up with anything more engaging than you waking up in a cell in third person and having to click on a thing on the ground, then -after a delay- on the door, and then follow some dumb instructions through a few dull mouse clicks.

It's the Elder Scrolls, dammit. A little cinematic wouldn't have hurt, but regardless I am shocked at how flat and cheap the delivery is. You start this EPIC game from an EPIC saga, and all you get is a dirty, flaccid tutorial. It's not simply that it is bad. It is just unbelievably weightless, pedestrian, ingloriously mediocre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
When has the intro to an Elder Scrolls game ever been anything but that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 28, 2014, 05:01:37 PM
Skyrim....?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 28, 2014, 05:33:08 PM
Skyrim....?

You were still a prisoner at the beginning.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 28, 2014, 05:36:10 PM
My buddy wanted to give me a key to possibly entice me to play it at launch with him (despite my best efforts, he insists on playing it). I don't think I would play at launch if someone gave me a free copy and a lifetime sub.

Well, maybe I would at least log in to make fun of it then.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel?

Some of you people are going way overboard with your disdain for this.  It's not like it gave you polio or something.  Maybe that can be its new slogan "ESO, at least you don't get polio from playing!". :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 28, 2014, 05:42:28 PM
Also, judging from the live streams I've seen so far 2/3 of the players will be rolling Bosmer archers...like I did. :facepalm:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on February 28, 2014, 05:45:15 PM
They put elves together with the cat-people. Gee I wonder what faction will be hilariously over-populated.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on February 28, 2014, 05:57:06 PM
I'm trying the beta and so far the game hasn't been as bad as some of the people in this thread have made it out to be.  That's not to say I think the game is good, but it's not the land portion of Pirates of the Burning Sea.

I agree that the three biggest problems I see so far are the terrible opening sequence, godawful UI and the lackluster animations.  The game intro really is terrible.  The so called story doesn't make any kind of sense at all if you stop to think about it for two seconds.  Am I supposed to be just a soul in some kind of underworld?  Because if so, it's really poorly presented since both the voice over and the journal say the soul has been torn from my body, implying that I'm a body without a soul.  Yet I need to be sent back into a body.  So I have no body or soul?  Am I a hologram?  If they mean I'm a disembodied soul, then just say that.  Also, that underworld has the worst security in the history of underworlds.  My favorite part was how all the security eye things are all networked together in such a way so if one is disabled, they all are.  It takes special planning to have a security system that inept.  Anyway, whatever.

As for the UI, the whole thing sucks.  I wonder if they'll be selling a mini-map as DLC?  I mean, that's the only conceivable reason why there isn't one, right?  The animations just don't feel fluid at all and are bland on top of that.  I guess the animations are a marked improvement over Daggerfall, maybe.

That said, there were things I did like.  I like that it's more 'standard' fantasy instead of the over-the-top silly fantasy of WoW or GW2.  It's also the first game since DAoC that I can play a sneaky archer.  Yes Ginaz, guess that I made?  :grin:  The models and world both look nice enough.  The island I'm on looks a bit drab but that seems to be more of a stylistic choice than a graphics issue.  The game actually runs pretty well on my aging laptop.  I don't know how deep character advancement is but so far there seems to be a lot of choices for customization.  Maybe not as many choices as a single player Elder Scrolls game but certainly more than most MMOs.  We'll see how having only 6 active abilities works out.  That's even less than Secret World.  I'm all for not having ability bloat but I think they may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

Lot's of character customization when you first make your character, too.  I know there are many cynics who think it doesn't matter since everything will be covered up in gaudy armor anyway, but just the process of creating just the right look for my character generates more of an attachment to the character, for me at least.  I could have lived without the ass slider, though.  Also, making an entire race available only to those who pay way too much for a collectors edition is perhaps the slimiest thing I've ever seen an MMO publisher do.

I could go on but I'll leave it at that for now.  I might buy the game if it were on sale for say $20 and there was no sub fee.  At the box price their asking and with a sub fee on top of it, no thanks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 28, 2014, 05:57:46 PM
I don't think you really need a reminder, but all I am saying is that, while nothing special, THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsRA5BG3N8E) puts THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzlN2m6C8Mg) to shame. And that's a shame.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on February 28, 2014, 06:09:00 PM
Oh wait, one other thing really stands out.  In keeping with the straight out of the 90s vibe of the game, I find myself rifling through every crate, sack, barrel and piece of furniture I come across.  Doesn't matter if it's out in the open, in someone's house or right next to the vendor to whom I'll immediately sell what I've just stolen.  Hey questgiver, is that a nice piece of bread on the table right next to you?  I think I'll just help myself, thanks.  It's almost quaint.

Edit: I do like that there's weather effects.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 28, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
I don't think you really need a reminder, but all I am saying is that, while nothing special, THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsRA5BG3N8E) puts THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzlN2m6C8Mg) to shame. And that's a shame.

That's because the first is made for a PC and the second is made for a console and multiplayer optimization.  I'd expect an MMO to look and play worse than a single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on February 28, 2014, 07:26:02 PM
I am not talking about gameplay or graphic quality. I am talking about the presentation, the feel, the sense of involvement. The first one, the Skyrim one, puts you there, makes you care, makes you curious about the surrounding and what forced you in chains, gives you the time to look around (even though you can't move) and listen to the other prisoners and then forces you to pay attention, and the whole thing is perfectly framed by the titles and the clanging sharp sounds that come with it.
The TESO one, even considering some probable "finalizing" that will come with the miracle patch right before launch, simply drops you into a MMORPG and says: "Hey, here's the tutorial and your first quest. Quick, there's no time to be classy, abandon style, forget immersion! Just click here and then there, follow the arrows and get out of the training zone, you know the drill!".

It's a missed opportunity I think, with a game of this caliber you would think they'd make sure to welcome and impress you in the first 30 seconds. In order to do that all they needed was a better storyboard, better ideas, not better technology.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on February 28, 2014, 07:33:33 PM
Skyrim....?

Start the game up and use a watch to time how long it is before you get to move under your own control, pick up an item, etc. ESO is quite generous in comparison, really.

Granted it isn't completely tedious until the 2nd time you do it, where ESO is tedious from the beginning, but I don't think there's really an enormous gulf between those introductory experiences from a fun standpoint at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on February 28, 2014, 07:34:54 PM
Mhmm, so I got myself a beta key and trying it out

pros:

sneaking around and one-shotting things with my bow keeps being more fun than it should
the starter elf/cat people area is kinda ok; nowhere near as bad as I'd expect from the comments
no gear/skill restriction is as nice as it was in the single player version(s)

cons:

uhh, everything else I guess?

semi-seriously, if it was a free-to-play game I'd probably spend some time with it. If just to see some of that content hinted at in the achievement section of the journal.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on March 01, 2014, 02:32:18 AM
Edit: I do like that there's weather effects.

Do the stars still twinkle? That was my favorite tiny, ignorable detail.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 04:33:27 AM
Skyrim....?

Start the game up and use a watch to time how long it is before you get to move under your own control, pick up an item, etc. ESO is quite generous in comparison, really.
I have yet to find a mod that skips that part.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 01, 2014, 04:43:41 AM
Skyrim....?

Start the game up and use a watch to time how long it is before you get to move under your own control, pick up an item, etc. ESO is quite generous in comparison, really.
I have yet to find a mod that skips that part.

Something like Alternate Start (http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/9557/?) you mean (originally released over 2 years ago)?

edit: list of various different beginnings the mod offers in spoiler:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on March 01, 2014, 05:38:29 AM
They need Liam Neeson to tell them to wake up and save the world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 01, 2014, 07:15:42 AM
I'm trying the beta and so far the game hasn't been as bad as some of the people in this thread have made it out to be.  That's not to say I think the game is good, but it's not the land portion of Pirates of the Burning Sea.

I agree that the three biggest problems I see so far are the terrible opening sequence, godawful UI and the lackluster animations.  The game intro really is terrible.  The so called story doesn't make any kind of sense at all if you stop to think about it for two seconds.  Am I supposed to be just a soul in some kind of underworld?  Because if so, it's really poorly presented since both the voice over and the journal say the soul has been torn from my body, implying that I'm a body without a soul.  Yet I need to be sent back into a body.  So I have no body or soul?  Am I a hologram?  If they mean I'm a disembodied soul, then just say that.  Also, that underworld has the worst security in the history of underworlds.  My favorite part was how all the security eye things are all networked together in such a way so if one is disabled, they all are.  It takes special planning to have a security system that inept.  Anyway, whatever.

As for the UI, the whole thing sucks.  I wonder if they'll be selling a mini-map as DLC?  I mean, that's the only conceivable reason why there isn't one, right?  The animations just don't feel fluid at all and are bland on top of that.  I guess the animations are a marked improvement over Daggerfall, maybe.

That said, there were things I did like.  I like that it's more 'standard' fantasy instead of the over-the-top silly fantasy of WoW or GW2.  It's also the first game since DAoC that I can play a sneaky archer.  Yes Ginaz, guess that I made?  :grin:  The models and world both look nice enough.  The island I'm on looks a bit drab but that seems to be more of a stylistic choice than a graphics issue.  The game actually runs pretty well on my aging laptop.  I don't know how deep character advancement is but so far there seems to be a lot of choices for customization.  Maybe not as many choices as a single player Elder Scrolls game but certainly more than most MMOs.  We'll see how having only 6 active abilities works out.  That's even less than Secret World.  I'm all for not having ability bloat but I think they may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

Lot's of character customization when you first make your character, too.  I know there are many cynics who think it doesn't matter since everything will be covered up in gaudy armor anyway, but just the process of creating just the right look for my character generates more of an attachment to the character, for me at least.  I could have lived without the ass slider, though.  Also, making an entire race available only to those who pay way too much for a collectors edition is perhaps the slimiest thing I've ever seen an MMO publisher do.

I could go on but I'll leave it at that for now.  I might buy the game if it were on sale for say $20 and there was no sub fee.  At the box price their asking and with a sub fee on top of it, no thanks.

Goto ESOUI.com and download the FTC addon and that is all you need.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 01, 2014, 07:17:46 AM
I am not talking about gameplay or graphic quality. I am talking about the presentation, the feel, the sense of involvement. The first one, the Skyrim one, puts you there, makes you care, makes you curious about the surrounding and what forced you in chains, gives you the time to look around (even though you can't move) and listen to the other prisoners and then forces you to pay attention, and the whole thing is perfectly framed by the titles and the clanging sharp sounds that come with it.
The TESO one, even considering some probable "finalizing" that will come with the miracle patch right before launch, simply drops you into a MMORPG and says: "Hey, here's the tutorial and your first quest. Quick, there's no time to be classy, abandon style, forget immersion! Just click here and then there, follow the arrows and get out of the training zone, you know the drill!".

It's a missed opportunity I think, with a game of this caliber you would think they'd make sure to welcome and impress you in the first 30 seconds. In order to do that all they needed was a better storyboard, better ideas, not better technology.

Well, if it's worth anything, the intro to Skyrim was god awful too and I couldn't skip it fast enough to get to playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on March 01, 2014, 07:48:29 AM
I don't generally play single player games and when I was going through the Skyrim intro, I was thinking to myself "what was I thinking paying $50 for this." That was quite in contrast with the actual game, which I enjoyed, though not perhaps as much as most people because I'm primarily an MMO player. That should make me the target market for TESO, but the concept and execution of TESO left me totally cold.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tmon on March 01, 2014, 09:05:19 AM
I've been meaning to ask.  Can hats be crafted and worn?  Can you sit in chairs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 01, 2014, 09:58:20 AM


It's a missed opportunity I think, with a game of this caliber you would think they'd make sure to welcome and impress you in the first 30 seconds. In order to do that all they needed was a better storyboard, better ideas, not better technology.

I think if they'd started you en media res, in a fight against the demons or whatever that kidnap you, let you fight until you finally lose,  and then have a cinematic of you getting taken down to that hell prison before starting the tutorial proper, it' work a lot better. I think you'd feel more involved in what is happening and it'd be much more exciting. The problem is, even the prison break doesn't feel tense or exciting. You're just kind of running through hallways fighting the one or two enemies that spawn then leaving.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 10:29:25 AM
I managed to get out of the prison and of the tropical island. Now I am level 6. I just want to try some PvP but the game does its best to make me ragequit at every corner.

So much fed ex. So much talk to this guy, now talk to this guy. Whoever designed these quests must be incredible proud of his writing skills. So far, in the spawn of about two hours, two apprentices offered to sacrifice themselves for their master to be imprisoned in their place.

SO MUCH TALKING TO NPCS. YOUR STORY IS NOT THAT INTERESTING. LET ME KILL STUFF. Argh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 01, 2014, 10:47:27 AM
No you must watch the story. It won't ever get annoying. Ever. Not even the 3rd time you do it with alts. So much happy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 01, 2014, 11:08:30 AM
It's pretty easy to skip through the dialog if you don't like all the talking.  Also, I haven't had a single 'get me 10 bear asses' quest yet so at least there's that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
It's pretty easy to skip through the dialog if you don't like all the talking.  Also, I haven't had a single 'get me 10 bear asses' quest yet so at least there's that.
Can you skip the "wait for the NPCs to do something" parts ? Like that introduction to Elder Scrolls lore by the Prophet ?

I would be okay with 10 bear asses quest because I WOULD BE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING. Sorcerer Combat is actually some fun. If the game lets you fight stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 11:20:38 AM
No you must watch the story. It won't ever get annoying. Ever. Not even the 3rd time you do it with alts. So much happy.
I am sure all three factions have distinctly different story lines with decisions that matter.

edit: To avoid a tripple post what the fuck is up with loot / quest rewards. I have not gotten a single piece that would fit a sorcerer and I think I am still using the staff you get in the tutorial/prison 1 minute in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 01, 2014, 12:42:23 PM
edit: To avoid a tripple post what the fuck is up with loot / quest rewards. I have not gotten a single piece that would fit a sorcerer and I think I am still using the staff you get in the tutorial/prison 1 minute in.

After all these years you'd think it would be MMO 101 to make sure that the loot that drops is usable by your class.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 01, 2014, 12:44:41 PM
edit: To avoid a tripple post what the fuck is up with loot / quest rewards. I have not gotten a single piece that would fit a sorcerer and I think I am still using the staff you get in the tutorial/prison 1 minute in.

After all these years you'd think it would be MMO 101 to make sure that the loot that drops is usable by your class.

I think the problem is that everyone can use pretty much everything in ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 01, 2014, 12:52:58 PM
Yes, I think I keep getting two-handed axes because I'm a Nord.  Unfortunately, I'm a dual wielding Nord assassin.  I also keep getting iron clothing when what I need is leather.  It's okay, though, at least you can craft your own junk.  I'm Signe Saebo on the game right now because that is my name.  I actually found two nice staffs that looked okay but I don't know what I did with them.  Ate them, maybe, because I'm a fat Nord.  Wish I could be fatter because then I could sing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 01, 2014, 01:05:01 PM
I think the problem is that everyone can use pretty much everything in ESO.

How hard would it be to have it do a skill check before the loot roll?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 01, 2014, 01:14:02 PM
As a sorc, I didn't get any staff drops or quest rewards.  I did make me a nice green Resto staff and got another from the bank from the last beta.  Tell ya one thing this game does better than Skyrim.  Spell combat.  Targeting is much easier and I like most of the spell choices.  *puts on Ring of Flame Resistance +5*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 01, 2014, 02:02:30 PM
I think the problem is that everyone can use pretty much everything in ESO.

How hard would it be to have it do a skill check before the loot roll?

The quest rewards are custom items based on the quest, not random rolls.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 01, 2014, 02:04:39 PM
I love mmo's that think they can just figure shit out on the fly.  Everyone can use any loot? Awesome, no possible implications whatsoever, no need to adjust anything!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 02:13:50 PM
The quest rewards are custom items based on the quest, not random rolls.
Yeah. That is why everybody is running around with the same iron chestpiece as a quest reward from the main quest on treasure island.  :uhrr:

I start to get the feeling that they fucked up the drop rate on cloth. I assume you are supposed to fabricate cloth drops back into resources ? The crafting interface suggested such a think.
So far I stumbled across ONE flax node. By accident because those things do not stand out at all.

edit: In before someone pked my flax joke.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 02:17:16 PM
I'm Signe Saebo on the game right now because that is my name. 

I'll try to send you a friend invite. Please be my friend, I need a friend to make it to level 10, where the fun starts.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 01, 2014, 02:43:09 PM
Do the different factions have different lowbie zones?  I've been swimming in Jute from all the jute plants I've come across.  Of course, since I need leather that doesn't help me much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
Played the beta again this weekend.  I was proud of myself for lasting 30 mins this time.  Back to WoT. 

This is such a dreadfully bland game that even I, a person that loves playing MMOs at release, can't stomach it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 01, 2014, 04:10:57 PM
Do the different factions have different lowbie zones?  I've been swimming in Jute from all the jute plants I've come across.  Of course, since I need leather that doesn't help me much.
As far as I can tell they get split by race -- elves and cat people get shared zone with the main quest line involving them both, I'm guessing the others are similar as I haven't seen any players of other races while in the newbie areas.

on the subject of loot, the best source of it in general and especially if you want to be a caster appear to be loot chests. You can open like 5-10 of simple chests with single lockpick that costs maybe 15 gold, and each chest will net either green quality armour piece or green quality weapon, which in 8 times out of 10 will be a staff (the other 2 will be axes, unless it's blue moon, then it will be a sword)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 01, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
The elves and cat people are a faction...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on March 01, 2014, 05:34:30 PM
This seems to be a very uneven game. Emotes for example are very well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUaLFvSEz9U&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUaLFvSEz9U&feature=youtu.be)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 01, 2014, 05:41:38 PM
I kinda like what I've seen from the crafting but haven't done much because I can't fucking find any maple logs!  Maybe it's because everyone is grabbing them, but those damn logs are well camouflaged from my weak-ass eyes.  I don't want fireworks, but can't we get some kind of subtle glow or something?  Herb gathering is just as bad.  

Quest rewards and drops have been overwhelmingly med and heavy armor and no staffs (Elf island).  Real bullshit right there.  

Lastly, the grind is still there.  Looks like they actually cap your level until you do certain quests.  I was on newbie isle, and I couldn't ding 6 until I finished the story quest.  I might be wrong about that, but sure looked that way to me.  Anyone confirm?

This game feels so retro.  In a good way but also in a bad way.  A very bad way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 01, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
This seems to be a very uneven game. Emotes for example are very well done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUaLFvSEz9U&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUaLFvSEz9U&feature=youtu.be)

Now if only they spent half as much time on the combat animations. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 01, 2014, 06:23:57 PM
I kinda like what I've seen from the crafting but haven't done much because I can't fucking find any maple logs!  Maybe it's because everyone is grabbing them, but those damn logs are well camouflaged from my weak-ass eyes.  I don't want fireworks, but can't we get some kind of subtle glow or something?  Herb gathering is just as bad.  

Quest rewards and drops have been overwhelmingly med and heavy armor and no staffs (Elf island).  Real bullshit right there.  

Lastly, the grind is still there.  Looks like they actually cap your level until you do certain quests.  I was on newbie isle, and I couldn't ding 6 until I finished the story quest.  I might be wrong about that, but sure looked that way to me.  Anyone confirm?

This game feels so retro.  In a good way but also in a bad way.  A very bad way.

There are a few skills you can take that make resources easier to see.  I haven't tried them myself so i don't know if it makes a difference or not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 01, 2014, 06:30:31 PM
I have played 12 hours over the weekend (what the fuck , that can't be right) and only managed to get to level 8.


The last 4 big quest chains bugged out on the final step, so I did not get the xp reward. Fuck this game. Fuck the people who created this pile of shit. I hope it all crashes and burns.


Wow. I have not felt such anger in a long time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 01, 2014, 07:39:51 PM
The elves and cat people are a faction...
Yeah, it's my bad -- I couldn't remember running into a single dark elf, so I thought the third race of the faction was getting their own newbie zone with some others.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 01, 2014, 07:49:28 PM
Server has shit the bed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 01, 2014, 10:03:19 PM
The elves and cat people are a faction...
Yeah, it's my bad -- I couldn't remember running into a single dark elf, so I thought the third race of the faction was getting their own newbie zone with some others.

It's bosmer (wood elves), altmer (high? elves) and kha'jit (cat people) for the aldmeri dominion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on March 01, 2014, 11:03:47 PM
I had another try at this yesterday. Couldn't stand it for more than 10 mins. It's so fucking ugly. Almost painful to my eyes ugly. I am comparing it to both WoW and Skyrim and it fails miserably on both counts.

WoW looks much more cartoony but uses its art assets much, much better. WoW feels coherent and alive, almost organic. TESO feels disjointed and sterile, utterly sterile and dead. Skyrim is just worlds apart from how TESO looks. My Skyrim is heavily modded so it's not a fair comparison in that respect, but it is dense, lush, colourful, bristling with life. TESO is... none of those things.

Also the animations. Oh god the animations are appalling. My character feels totally disconnected from the environment. There seems to be no transition between animations. Just something simple like running around and jumping was so jarring and poorly done. It looked and felt like watching someone acting badly on a greenscreen with a fake world behind them, like watching an episode of Knightmare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightmare)!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 02, 2014, 05:42:47 AM
It's bosmer (wood elves), altmer (high? elves) and kha'jit (cat people) for the aldmeri dominion.
Huh. I went to the character creation again to figure it out and then it made sense, the races there are grouped in columns under their respective faction sign, not in rows like I though they were. That's also why it didn't click for me the cat people and wood elves were the same faction, they're in separate rows on that screen.

In hindsight that layout doesn't do anything wrong and is pretty logical, still managed to confuse me tho :why_so_serious:

I had another try at this yesterday. Couldn't stand it for more than 10 mins. It's so fucking ugly. Almost painful to my eyes ugly. I am comparing it to both WoW and Skyrim and it fails miserably on both counts.
I think it's mostly the lighting model it uses. It's so washed out it winds up very feeling very flat and pre-HDR like. Keeps reminding me of EQ2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 02, 2014, 06:34:01 AM
I had another try at this yesterday. Couldn't stand it for more than 10 mins. It's so fucking ugly. Almost painful to my eyes ugly. I am comparing it to both WoW and Skyrim and it fails miserably on both counts.

WoW looks much more cartoony but uses its art assets much, much better. WoW feels coherent and alive, almost organic. TESO feels disjointed and sterile, utterly sterile and dead. Skyrim is just worlds apart from how TESO looks. My Skyrim is heavily modded so it's not a fair comparison in that respect, but it is dense, lush, colourful, bristling with life. TESO is... none of those things.

Also the animations. Oh god the animations are appalling. My character feels totally disconnected from the environment. There seems to be no transition between animations. Just something simple like running around and jumping was so jarring and poorly done. It looked and felt like watching someone acting badly on a greenscreen with a fake world behind them, like watching an episode of Knightmare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightmare)!

It has a lot of problems but, IMO, the graphics and art style isn't one of them.  The graphics are somewhere between Oblivion and Skyrim, which is fine for an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 02, 2014, 06:59:04 AM
Some of the characters and story ideas are really good and fun. I'd love to hear more about the backstory of Raz, but because I had to abandon most of the quests (which seems to finish them) I missed most of the back story of why I am now in her majesties intelligence service. But Raz was still awesome.

But some of the stories/quests ... :uhrr:
It seems to me every 2nd village I ran through had the same quest line.
We are getting invaded.
Go find/help/rescue the innocents.
Find at least 1 father/brother/son dead. 15 meters away.
Support the troops.
Oh no, a traitor.
Kill Big(ish) Bad.
Kill/Forgive traitor.
No quest reward because fuck you its a stress test and beta and not even the final build and all will be fixed at release. ITS ONLY BETA!1!1!eleven


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 02, 2014, 10:25:43 AM
But no bear asses!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on March 02, 2014, 01:53:24 PM
It has a lot of problems but, IMO, the graphics and art style isn't one of them.  The graphics are somewhere between Oblivion and Skyrim, which is fine for an MMO.

I used to think the world looked like the next incarnation of LotRO's broadly-realistic, RL biome-based style. But I liked LotRO's environments, and not everyone did.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 02, 2014, 02:42:26 PM
I liked the look of LoTRO a lot. The combat was dull as hell though, and WAY too many quests involved running all over hell's half acre. I feel like all I did in that game was run or ride around on expensive horses 95% of the time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 02, 2014, 03:23:04 PM
I liked the look as well.  Rivendell, The Shire and the Barrow Downs were especially well done.  I still play it on occasion, hell my friend and his daughter are LOTR geeks as well and still play a lot.  He has to wait, because she reads every single quest.  Every one. 

But yeah,the quest paths were crazy bad for travel.  Combat was pretty bad too, but overall I have very fond memories of grouping with friends and finding the locations from the book.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 02, 2014, 03:53:56 PM
I feel like all I did in that game was run or ride around on expensive horses 95% of the time.

So you're saying it captured the books perfectly.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on March 02, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
Fucking woeful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 02, 2014, 04:15:33 PM
I actually had fun this beta. There is a ton wrong with the game, and it feels like most design decisions came from 2004, but really to me the only thing I want from a game is fun. I can't see this as being a huge success as the masses want a more modern game these days, but I think there is enough fun there for me to justify the cost plus sub for a few months.

I really wonder how viable a lot the the builds will be. Flexible system be dammed if most of the non-cookie cutter builds aren't viable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 02, 2014, 05:58:08 PM
I actually had fun this beta. There is a ton wrong with the game, and it feels like most design decisions came from 2004, but really to me the only thing I want from a game is fun. I can't see this as being a huge success as the masses want a more modern game these days, but I think there is enough fun there for me to justify the cost plus sub for a few months.

I really wonder how viable a lot the the builds will be. Flexible system be dammed if most of the non-cookie cutter builds aren't viable.

Yeah, I think it would be a giant mistake requiring certain abilities or X amount of skill points plugged into skill lines in order to do dungeons, raids and pvp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on March 02, 2014, 07:06:01 PM
I actually had fun this beta. There is a ton wrong with the game, and it feels like most design decisions came from 2004, but really to me the only thing I want from a game is fun. I can't see this as being a huge success as the masses want a more modern game these days, but I think there is enough fun there for me to justify the cost plus sub for a few months.

I really wonder how viable a lot the the builds will be. Flexible system be dammed if most of the non-cookie cutter builds aren't viable.

I use the fun standard too, but I also find games tremendously fun then ditch them 2 weeks later.  If all a game wants to do is make box sales, fun works, but if they want to continue to get subscriptions when the free month is over they have to have some depth and staying power.  Pvpers are such a finicky bunch though.  I can't imagine how the solo RPG'er will do against the average denizen of the nomadic PvP Crowd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 02, 2014, 07:38:44 PM
I feel like all I did in that game was run or ride around on expensive horses 95% of the time.

So you're saying it captured the books perfectly.  :awesome_for_real:

 :awesome_for_real:

I guess I walked right into that one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 02, 2014, 10:57:38 PM
One does not simply walk into LoTR jokes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 02, 2014, 11:28:23 PM
Should I have said 'epic journeyed'?  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on March 03, 2014, 12:39:57 AM
It has a lot of problems but, IMO, the graphics and art style isn't one of them.  The graphics are somewhere between Oblivion and Skyrim, which is fine for an MMO.

Yeah I think opinions about the graphics are the definition of subjective, I'm sure not everyone will share my feelings.

Also, I've never made it out of the starter island in either of the beta weekends I've participated in yet, so I also totally accept that the visual style may improve greatly in the rest of the game world.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 03, 2014, 07:49:56 AM
I didn't like the graphics as much as i like GW2 but they were better than the skittles vomit of Wildstar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on March 03, 2014, 07:59:37 AM
See, I hated the art style of GW2.  It seems nice at first but quickly becomes bland as hell.  One of the factors that made the game so boring to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on March 03, 2014, 08:08:24 AM
See, I hated the art style of GW2.  It seems nice at first but quickly becomes bland as hell.  One of the factors that made the game so boring to me.

Just goes to show how subjective art style is. I love the style of GW2, but could not stand the bland look of ESO. I never once made a character I was happy with the look of.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 03, 2014, 10:54:48 AM
The argument between the look of ESO vs GW2 is like the argument between classic cinematography and orange/teal over saturated cinematography.  ESO only feels washed out and bland because WoW, GW2 and Wildstar are..  let's just say abundantly colorful.  I actually thought the look of ESO was its strongest point.

The other noteworthy thing that I liked was just how large Cyrodiil (the PvP map) was.  It looked like it'd be harder to just blitz a keep since there's a siege limit and I believe there's a siege spacing requirement as well when building them.  There are supply lines for moving around, making for some other interesting tactics.  I like the idea of the forward bases but they might undermine the supply line tactics.  All in all, that part looks much better than GW2 WvW.

Unfortunately, the PvP *combat* is ass.  It really highlights how bad the animations are in this game.  Characters just feel 'floaty', especially the jumping animation where you literally do kind of float.  There are few if any visual clues to when you're being hit so unless your eyes are glued to your health bar you can find yourself suddenly dead with no warning, even though you've been hit multiple times.  Oh, and since chat system is rudimentary, there's no combat log (that I could find at least) to see exactly what happened.  But hey, at least chat works so it's got a leg up on AC2!  :why_so_serious:

All in all, the game feels like it would have been a fine sequel to DAoC if it had been released back in 2003 or so.  WoW would still eat its lunch in 2004, though.  Aside from the graphics, which I thought were well done and run very well on even my old machine, ESO just feels very amateurish and incomplete.  Even though I liked that I got to play a sneaky archer for the first time since DAoC, ESO is just not worth a box purchase plus a sub fee.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 03, 2014, 12:09:27 PM
The argument between the look of ESO vs GW2 is like the argument between classic cinematography and orange/teal over saturated cinematography.  ESO only feels washed out and bland because WoW, GW2 and Wildstar are..  let's just say abundantly colorful.  I actually thought the look of ESO was its strongest point.

The other noteworthy thing that I liked was just how large Cyrodiil (the PvP map) was.  It looked like it'd be harder to just blitz a keep since there's a siege limit and I believe there's a siege spacing requirement as well when building them.  There are supply lines for moving around, making for some other interesting tactics.  I like the idea of the forward bases but they might undermine the supply line tactics.  All in all, that part looks much better than GW2 WvW.

Unfortunately, the PvP *combat* is ass.  It really highlights how bad the animations are in this game.  Characters just feel 'floaty', especially the jumping animation where you literally do kind of float.  There are few if any visual clues to when you're being hit so unless your eyes are glued to your health bar you can find yourself suddenly dead with no warning, even though you've been hit multiple times.  Oh, and since chat system is rudimentary, there's no combat log (that I could find at least) to see exactly what happened.  But hey, at least chat works so it's got a leg up on AC2!  :why_so_serious:

All in all, the game feels like it would have been a fine sequel to DAoC if it had been released back in 2003 or so.  WoW would still eat its lunch in 2004, though.  Aside from the graphics, which I thought were well done and run very well on even my old machine, ESO just feels very amateurish and incomplete.  Even though I liked that I got to play a sneaky archer for the first time since DAoC, ESO is just not worth a box purchase plus a sub fee.

I think the visual clue thing is solved with add-ons like Foundry Tactical Combat (ESO supports LUA addons)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 03, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
I was using FTC on the last day and it still didn't help much.  Some, but not enough.  The problem is the character models don't really react to being hit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 03, 2014, 12:18:54 PM
There is a pretty good combat log if you download the add-on for it. The combat txt add on solve alot of the targeting issue as well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 03, 2014, 07:20:53 PM
The argument between the look of ESO vs GW2 is like the argument between classic cinematography and orange/teal over saturated cinematography.  ESO only feels washed out and bland because WoW, GW2 and Wildstar are..  let's just say abundantly colorful.  I actually thought the look of ESO was its strongest point.
I don't think it's just that, as even within ESO itself you experience noticeable jump in how much colour there is in the environments when you move from the newbie zone to the next island (and both are step ups from the prison dungeon sequence in that regard). The early zones are washed out and bland quite objectively, without making comparisons to any other games. Unfortunately for the devs the player is going to experience these extremely drab areas first, and who knows how many will bother to move past them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 03, 2014, 07:23:11 PM
Apparently the latest patch is adding the option to skip the tutorial and newbie island and go straight to a major city.

Edit for the link (http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/02/24/elder-scrolls-online-will-give-option-to-bypass-starter-island/)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on March 03, 2014, 10:14:19 PM
I think the visual clue thing is solved with add-ons like Foundry Tactical Combat (ESO supports LUA addons)
There is a pretty good combat log if you download the add-on for it. The combat txt add on solve alot of the targeting issue as well.

There's already add-ons to fix the game?
It might turn into a real Elder Scrolls game after all!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 04, 2014, 11:54:50 AM
When are they adding cliff racers?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 04, 2014, 12:06:13 PM
When are they adding cliff racers?
When it goes free to play and you can afford the nostalgia.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on March 04, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
Hmm, and they can sell racer repellant in the cash store,. Brilliant.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on March 04, 2014, 03:34:37 PM
St. Jiub's Racer Repellant, now in the Daedric Store for 200 Molag Bucks


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on March 04, 2014, 10:52:38 PM
If they put a cash shop in as well as a $60 box cost and monthly sub then they'll alienate even more pissed off gamers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 05, 2014, 06:40:14 AM
Who cares about alienation? This isn't a game. This is a cash grab before they are forced to admit defeat, and I believe that's been the plan for months. They know this thing sucks internally. They are downright admitting it by letting you skip the part that's supposed to hook you into the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 05, 2014, 07:53:05 AM
Apparently the latest patch is adding the option to skip the tutorial and newbie island and go straight to a major city.
I decided to skip to the end and go straight to a different game.

That really says something when they cut out that much of the beginning content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 05, 2014, 09:00:48 AM
If they put a cash shop in as well as a $60 box cost and monthly sub then they'll alienate even more pissed off gamers.

I honestly don't think they can piss off anyone who buys it. They are already deep into the Kool-Aid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 05, 2014, 09:22:01 AM
Apparently the latest patch is adding the option to skip the tutorial and newbie island and go straight to a major city.
I decided to skip to the end and go straight to a different game.

That really says something when they cut out that much of the beginning content.
I did not find the beginning that bad. What really distracted me was the lack of instancing. Having dozens of people standing around in the same hidden cave, secret basement, or whatever really was immersion breaking.

What I found decent was the way they handled "phasing". The stuff I think WoW introduced during WotLK ? That worked very well for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 05, 2014, 10:19:53 AM
Apparently the latest patch is adding the option to skip the tutorial and newbie island and go straight to a major city.
I decided to skip to the end and go straight to a different game.

TESO is essentially Global Thermonuclear War.  I like it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 05, 2014, 03:18:52 PM
Who cares about alienation? This isn't a game. This is a cash grab before they are forced to admit defeat, and I believe that's been the plan for months. They know this thing sucks internally. They are downright admitting it by letting you skip the part that's supposed to hook you into the game.

Meh, that's a massive overstatement. There's a game here, it will have players. I don't really like it but there's been plenty of work put in and they will have a player base.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 05, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
Who cares about alienation? This isn't a game. This is a cash grab before they are forced to admit defeat, and I believe that's been the plan for months. They know this thing sucks internally. They are downright admitting it by letting you skip the part that's supposed to hook you into the game.

Meh, that's a massive overstatement. There's a game here, it will have players. I don't really like it but there's been plenty of work put in and they will have a player base.

Its going to go like every other MMO, except for WoW of course.  Lots of people playing the first month followed by a mass exodus and server merges until things stabilize with a player base that is not what the developers wanted but is still stable and profitable.  Mark my words.  Its like I'm the Nostradamus of MMOs. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 05, 2014, 05:49:25 PM
This game might set a new record for the conversion to F2P.  The only hope they have is to milk people for the box cost.  There's no way anyone but the diehard fans will pay a sub fee to play this shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 05, 2014, 06:01:34 PM
Who cares about alienation? This isn't a game. This is a cash grab before they are forced to admit defeat, and I believe that's been the plan for months. They know this thing sucks internally. They are downright admitting it by letting you skip the part that's supposed to hook you into the game.

Meh, that's a massive overstatement. There's a game here, it will have players. I don't really like it but there's been plenty of work put in and they will have a player base.

Its going to go like every other MMO, except for WoW of course.  Lots of people playing the first month followed by a mass exodus and server merges until things stabilize with a player base that is not what the developers wanted but is still stable and profitable.  Mark my words.  Its like I'm the Nostradamus of MMOs. :awesome_for_real:

I agree with you.  Although I'm one of the few here that enjoy it, it galls me to no end that I can buy the box and sub but can't play the Imperial race.  You know, until the cash shop offers it.   :oh_i_see: Also disappointed in crafting.  Too much of a time sink to raise crafting levels.  There's just several things I personally think need to be re-balanced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on March 05, 2014, 08:00:22 PM
Can you put baskets on people's heads?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 05, 2014, 10:16:00 PM
Can you put baskets on people's heads?

I don't think so.  And, sadly, you can't fill your house full of cabbages, either. :heartbreak:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 06, 2014, 07:37:27 AM
That's the other thing.  It's the sandbox and modding elements I love.  EQ Next is more likely to be close to what I want than a supposed Elder Scrolls game.

In Morrowind I made a faerie and golem race.  In Skyrim I just made a cute summonable wisp.  In all the games I just wandered around doing whatever and playing house.  If I do a quest it's either coincidence or because I wanted a bit of structure between my wanderings.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 06, 2014, 10:17:18 AM
The crafting issues are compounded by the fact that there's no auction house. That is fucking insanity in a modern game. If there's a boner for people interacting with one another, find another way to do it.

Theory: seeing how difficult it was to get GW2's mega-AH working, this is down to technical limitations on their part. They'll eventually get it sorted and the first major feature addition will be an AH. However, because they've covered their limitations in MMO-speak about community and interactions and shit, the advent of the AH when it does come will be accompanied by player arguments.

All that said, I'm going to be playing it. I'm not super down on the game. There are definitely decisions that just seem bizarre to me (racial gating, no cross faction PvE, auction house) but those aren't, believe it or not, core to the way I play MMOs now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 06, 2014, 03:24:40 PM
Wait ? What ? They are planning to launch without an AH ?  :awesome_for_real:

I was under the impression it was disabled for the last beta weekend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 06, 2014, 03:43:46 PM
To have an AH they might have to hire someone competent to work on a UI, and they can't have that!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 06, 2014, 04:25:03 PM
Wait ? What ? They are planning to launch without an AH ?  :awesome_for_real:

I was under the impression it was disabled for the last beta weekend.

Nope. Here's the clue that they're full of shit about the reasons why, too: they have them but for guilds only. As in, you can sell only to members of your own guild. Their stated big idea is to get people to join trade guilds (since you can join five guilds at a time) and trade that way. But that's still a 500 person cap on trading.

It's sooooo dumb


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 06, 2014, 04:30:31 PM
Hey 2004... your MMO is calling!

No AH is just clownshoes in this day and age. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2014, 04:31:30 PM
You know what, at this point I'd put money on the fact this shuts down within 18 months. It just gets buried under it's own incompetence and Bethesda pulls the rip cord to save the brand.

Total failure by late 2015.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 06, 2014, 05:09:56 PM
You know what, at this point I'd put money on the fact this shuts down within 18 months. It just gets buried under it's own incompetence and Bethesda pulls the rip cord to save the brand.

Total failure by late 2015.

I'll take that bet. Steam game $40 or under of our choice, payable Jan 1 2015? You win if they've executed or even announced a total shutdown of the game by then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2014, 05:24:54 PM
Well for starters it would be Jan. 1 2016, so 18 months after the console release which I think is in June.

And my only qualifier would be if they say they are shutting it down to retool the game like what final fantasy did, that counts as a shut down. Basically if they announce they are pulling all servers offline and starting over, or if they just give up.

Oh and lets make it $20 Steam game, it could be on sale if you like. That's my limit for silly bets.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 06, 2014, 05:49:50 PM
I like this stupid bet. There is no way they're shutting it down in 1.5 years. Even if it's a flaming garbage scow (it's not) they won't shut it down that soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 06, 2014, 06:45:33 PM
It all depends on how embarrassed Bethesda is by the damage to the brand. After Skyrim you know they want to put out another iteration of that game ASAP. It was massively popular. If this thing shits all over the IP, I'm thinking they pull the plug and start promoting something else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 06, 2014, 08:45:35 PM
Wait ? What ? They are planning to launch without an AH ?  :awesome_for_real:

I was under the impression it was disabled for the last beta weekend.

I kind of like the idea of not having a "global AH" in theory. Unfortunately it will never work properly in practice in any way that would be interesting instead of just being a hindrance and an annoyance to trading stuff in game.

edit: I like the idea of markets being handled like for example EVE where the items have a "physical location" and the buyers are spread out instead of being in just one location


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 06, 2014, 09:54:43 PM
Nope. Here's the clue that they're full of shit about the reasons why, too: they have them but for guilds only. As in, you can sell only to members of your own guild. Their stated big idea is to get people to join trade guilds (since you can join five guilds at a time) and trade that way. But that's still a 500 person cap on trading.

It's sooooo dumb
This reminds me, did FF14 add the AH for their "2.0" re-launch, or do they still only have the option of walking from npc to npc to check out what the players put on sale in these?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ard on March 07, 2014, 12:03:17 AM
Full on AH.  All the extremely blatant stupidity got purged by the new producer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 07, 2014, 07:41:54 AM
So Ingmar, we on for this bet under those conditions? I do like having action on spectacular failure of a terrible cash grab (right or wrong).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on March 07, 2014, 07:52:50 AM
In a small game, if you have regional AH's, people just pick one and everyone starts to gravitate to that one location. I, personally, like shopkeeping mixed with a housing system a la UO or SWG, but that takes a lot of convenience out of the system. Not having anything is a joke.

Eve can have disparate pricing because of its size. Eve has over 5000 systems. That's probably more than all the zones and cities in all the other MMOs added together. It also has a sophisticated set of options for shipping.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 07, 2014, 08:08:19 AM
In a small game, if you have regional AH's, people just pick one and everyone starts to gravitate to that one location. I, personally, like shopkeeping mixed with a housing system a la UO or SWG, but that takes a lot of convenience out of the system. Not having anything is a joke.

DAoC did an interesting take on this.  You could purchase a vendor for your house and people could either buy your wares at a central market for an additional fee or run to your house and purchase directly to avoid a surcharge.  It's very old-school, but gave you an excuse to look at the personalization of people's houses.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 07, 2014, 01:00:06 PM
In a small game, if you have regional AH's, people just pick one and everyone starts to gravitate to that one location. I, personally, like shopkeeping mixed with a housing system a la UO or SWG, but that takes a lot of convenience out of the system. Not having anything is a joke.

DAoC did an interesting take on this.  You could purchase a vendor for your house and people could either buy your wares at a central market for an additional fee or run to your house and purchase directly to avoid a surcharge.  It's very old-school, but gave you an excuse to look at the personalization of people's houses.

What you described is how EQ2 does it. From what I remember, DAoC's only listed where the stuff was sold, and you had to trudge out there to get it. Kind of like UO's vendors, but with a direction guide.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 07, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
In a small game, if you have regional AH's, people just pick one and everyone starts to gravitate to that one location. I, personally, like shopkeeping mixed with a housing system a la UO or SWG, but that takes a lot of convenience out of the system. Not having anything is a joke.

DAoC did an interesting take on this.  You could purchase a vendor for your house and people could either buy your wares at a central market for an additional fee or run to your house and purchase directly to avoid a surcharge.  It's very old-school, but gave you an excuse to look at the personalization of people's houses.

There was something like that in swg, too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on March 07, 2014, 02:10:23 PM
DaoC's system was butt unless you had a house near the trading board.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 07, 2014, 02:32:20 PM
DaoC's system was butt unless you had a house near the trading board.

You quit before the changes.  You could buy from the entrance to housing (for a fee) if you didn't want to run to the central markets.  Not bad for a 12 year old game, especially considering that ESO and its bloated budget has nothing. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on March 07, 2014, 03:04:06 PM
None of which made selling things any better for the dumb bastards with houses in the boonies. Unless you had a rare'ish item, no one was going to truck to your shop or pay the shipping fee when they could get the same stack of potions from the house five feet to their right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on March 08, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
I wouldn't put money on closure, but I would put money on F2P conversion easily. I just don't know whether I would put it at under 24, 18 or 12 months, and I'm not willing to put in the personal long term game experience necessary to get a feel for that.

On a total hunch I'd say F2P under 18 months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 08, 2014, 03:18:57 PM
On a total hunch I'd say F2P under 18 months.

I think you could safely say that about 95% of the MMOs released since 2011.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on March 08, 2014, 07:35:46 PM
Nine months, tops.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 08, 2014, 08:49:44 PM
So Ingmar, we on for this bet under those conditions? I do like having action on spectacular failure of a terrible cash grab (right or wrong).

Sure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on March 09, 2014, 03:47:26 AM
On a total hunch I'd say F2P under 18 months.

I think you could safely say that about 95% of the MMOs released since 2011.

yeahhhhhh, ugh, it's not even remotely a bold prediction, but I kind of just get a sense that it will be within a year and a year and a half because I think they'll be clingy about the game and push it for a while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 09, 2014, 06:58:13 AM
They'll be clingy, but once in the wild the returns will determine how long.  I'd say a year before free to play, and that's being conservative in my guess.  I wouldn't at all be surprised by it happening sooner if it's doing poorly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 09, 2014, 07:40:02 AM
I said it earlier and I'll stick with it.  This game will sell a lot of boxes just like SWTOR did.  The problem is that once people see how they were scammed, they won't stick around.  I have to wonder how much this mess will damage the EO franchise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 09, 2014, 08:21:37 AM
And it will go F2P 11 months later, like SWTOR did. A F2P relaunch is an opportunity for all new buzz, all new advertising, all new articles on all gaming sites, all new people trying it, with 11 months more polish and content than at launch.

You could almost say that these days the real launch of an MMORPG is when it drops the paid beta phase subscription model and goes F2P.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 09, 2014, 10:24:06 AM
I read somewhere a few weeks ago (and can't locate the source) that they believe selling only "a fraction" of the copies they did for Skyrim will get them TESO production costs back.  It wasn't specified what that fraction value was but they seem confident they'll go profitable from box sales. 

I wish I could find that source.

I'd wager at this point most major MMOs have a business plan in place before launch to transition to F2P. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 09, 2014, 02:05:30 PM
Skyrim sold 20 million copes plus. Unless that fraction is 10%, they ain't touching that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 09, 2014, 03:04:28 PM
Do we know what Bethesda proper is working on right now?  If it's the next fallout instead of skyrim they would have time to let the ESO... fallout, blowover.

I'm sorry but that pun would have haunted me had I not used it.

Also, I'm buying the game regardless.  I know enough other people playing that it will be fun for long enough to get my money's worth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 09, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Fallout: Boston I've heard.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on March 10, 2014, 02:52:56 AM
Fallout: Boston I've heard.

Mattapan?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on March 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
I for one welcome our mutant Southie overlords.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 10, 2014, 12:52:30 PM
I for one welcome our mutant Southie overlords.

Do you like apples?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 10, 2014, 02:09:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QQTnr16.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 10, 2014, 05:04:46 PM
I gotta use mah snipah rifle on dat mutaant ovah dere.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 11, 2014, 11:17:21 AM
Well, I got another beta invite. This one allows me to play with the perks of the Imperial Edition. I am not sure whether this is testing that edition out before release or a desperate attempt to sell more copies of said Imperial edition. I did notice that the pre-order now has "play any race in any alliance. (I think before only Imperials could be in any alliance) " So...basically....you can be a Dark Elf in any alliance, a Nord in any alliance, etc. There goes the 'lore' behind each alliance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 11, 2014, 11:32:45 AM
No, that was always there for preorders.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 12, 2014, 08:16:55 AM
IGN sent emails that they have beta keys.  I'm sure other places have them too.  It's probably pretty easy to get one now if you want.  I have an extra one if anyone wants it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 12, 2014, 01:22:01 PM
I wonder if the key I had for the last beta will still work for this one.  I guess I'll find out this weekend.  I'm mostly just curious to see if there's any improvement on the animation/combat front.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 12, 2014, 03:27:17 PM
IGN sent emails that they have beta keys.  I'm sure other places have them too.  It's probably pretty easy to get one now if you want.  I have an extra one if anyone wants it.

They are begging people to try it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 12, 2014, 03:34:51 PM
I wonder if the key I had for the last beta will still work for this one.  I guess I'll find out this weekend.  I'm mostly just curious to see if there's any improvement on the animation/combat front.

I got an email today about the beta.  Your key should work.  Also combat and the starting area have been revamped.  You can even test the Imperial race, you know the race that's too good for the average subscriber.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on March 12, 2014, 03:45:56 PM
Do we know what Bethesda proper is working on right now?  If it's the next fallout instead of skyrim they would have time to let the ESO... fallout, blowover.

I'm sorry but that pun would have haunted me had I not used it.

Also, I'm buying the game regardless.  I know enough other people playing that it will be fun for long enough to get my money's worth.

Regarding the Elder Scrolls series, I can't find a quote, but I remember a developer who said, with reference to Skyrim, that its development cycle started shortly after Oblivion, basically. I imagine the next "standalone" chapter is already well in pre-production. Given the huge success of Skyrim, it's a no brainer, really, no matter how the MMOG will fare.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 13, 2014, 01:32:08 AM
The most important change for me is that they enable collision detection AT LEAST in PvE. I don't think that will magically make combat more engaging, but it's something. This game is a bag full of disappointment though, no miracle patch is gonna save it. Eventually, only years of content and improvements will be able to make it into a nice, sweet F2P title worth considering for a run with friends in late 2015.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on March 13, 2014, 07:33:09 AM
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/03/13/limited-edition-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online

http://store.bethsoft.com/media/the-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online.html

I must admit that if this (meaning, this particular merchandise) was done by "Bethesda proper" for the launch of a single-player chapter, I might have purchased it (and yes, this is different and not different at the same time, I know it).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 13, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/03/13/limited-edition-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online

http://store.bethsoft.com/media/the-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online.html

I must admit that if this (meaning, this particular merchandise) was done by "Bethesda proper" for the launch of a single-player chapter, I might have purchased it (and yes, this is different and not different at the same time, I know it).

Can I get them without buying the game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on March 13, 2014, 04:45:24 PM
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/03/13/limited-edition-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online

http://store.bethsoft.com/media/the-heros-guides-to-the-elder-scrolls-online.html

I must admit that if this (meaning, this particular merchandise) was done by "Bethesda proper" for the launch of a single-player chapter, I might have purchased it (and yes, this is different and not different at the same time, I know it).

Can I get them without buying the game?

Looking at the store page I linked...yeah, seems so, it lists only the  books/guides.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on March 14, 2014, 09:46:41 AM
It's always a good sign when you download/install the game and reboot the patcher after a known fault to be asked if you want to migrate to the EU megaserver based on your location... and when you decline, it asks you if you really don't want to migrate to the EU megaserver and you decline again... so the launcher sets itself as 'The Elder Scrolls Online - EU' anyway and attempts to download all 22gigs worth of the game all over again and you have to manually switch to the NA megaserver yourself to patch normally. Quite why you'd need two seperate clients to play on either server cluster is beyond me, let alone why the Launcher is incapable of accepting a straight answer twice. Beta is beta and all that, but these are pretty egregious and front-loaded fuckups.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on March 14, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
It's always a good sign when you download/install the game and reboot the patcher after a known fault to be asked if you want to migrate to the EU megaserver based on your location... and when you decline, it asks you if you really don't want to migrate to the EU megaserver and you decline again... so the launcher sets itself as 'The Elder Scrolls Online - EU' anyway and attempts to download all 22gigs worth of the game all over again and you have to manually switch to the NA megaserver yourself to patch normally. Quite why you'd need two seperate clients to play on either server cluster is beyond me, let alone why the Launcher is incapable of accepting a straight answer twice. Beta is beta and all that, but these are pretty egregious and front-loaded fuckups.

Maybe they are taking the cue from DAOC and haveing European servers several versions behind   :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 14, 2014, 11:59:14 AM
Or maybe regional censorship something something? That is odd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on March 14, 2014, 12:51:50 PM
Apparently the update process is pretty dumb (https://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3055)

Quote
The Elder Scrolls Online beta client requires 27 GB on the computer's hard drive. At least 60 GB are needed to perform the download and installation operations, and furthermore, a computer needs about 15% of its hard drive space to be empty to run properly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on March 14, 2014, 01:24:29 PM
 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 14, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
 :rofl:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on March 14, 2014, 03:13:26 PM
How long until the 'oh, it also deletes the Boot.ini file on your hard drive' post?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 14, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
Who's playing, how is the newbie update? My laptop is in the shop.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 14, 2014, 07:02:00 PM
The 15% free space sounds fishy as it ran for me pretty well without it, but 60 gb for installation looks about right.

It also likes to leave ~30gb of trash stuff in its directory after you uninstall it, too. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 14, 2014, 08:22:58 PM
Who's playing, how is the newbie update? My laptop is in the shop.


The newbie update is basically skipping the newbie island after the tutorial.  Which is an improvement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on March 14, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
Tried an Imperial Templar this time.  Made it to level 3, and quit when I had to go kill some assassins on a boat, and there was a dozen plus people milling around waiting to kill it as soon as it spawned.  I'll just stick to playing Oblivion, and Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 14, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
You didn't want to spawn camp or wait for the players to create their own rotation?!

Lightweight.*

 :awesome_for_real:

* In all seriousness, fuck that old school shit 10 years ago like it should be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on March 14, 2014, 10:01:23 PM
Since both of these sound like flops what's the next big hope on the MMO horizon? It's a sad situation when EQ:Next is the best hope for a decent MMO (and SOE will find a way to fail).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 15, 2014, 04:23:33 AM
Bearing in mind that I actually like TESO, I haven't felt the savior of MMO buzz from anything since AOC and WAR launching. I felt like those launches took a lot of wind out of everyone's sails and that everything since then has been "just another game" style buzz. Which can still be solid buzz, just not the sort of thing we used to see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 15, 2014, 06:21:23 AM
Since both of these sound like flops what's the next big hope on the MMO horizon? It's a sad situation when EQ:Next is the best hope for a decent MMO (and SOE will find a way to fail).
I'm thinking Star Citizen. ;D

Right now it's EQ Next, though I'm not getting my hopes up.  I can't think of anything else that's been announced.  As long as the only thing being put out attempts to be bigger and better than the last MMO instead of just a solid game it will continue that way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on March 15, 2014, 06:43:00 AM
Yeah I'd agree with that.  EQ Next is the only MMO that's really proposing to do anything new, and they have really gotten some credibility with the surprising success of Landmark.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 15, 2014, 08:26:28 AM
Agreed; however, I'd class EQ Next as the next "most curious thing to happen to" rather than the "savior of" MMOs.

I also agree that it's been years since any game was positioned as the savior of MMOs. But I don't think that's because nothing interesting has happened. Rather, it's because the medium has long since past the point where a single entry can be on the tip of the tongue for pundents. 'When was the last time most of us thought a single game was going to be for most of us? I would say it was even before AoC and WAR. It might have been WoW.

Tera, GW2, SWTOR, each of these happened for a specific set of players. And even if SWTOR was positioned for all players, we knew even then it was unrealistic, no matter what the marketing plan was.

So I don't saddle any publisher with giving us something we all want. There's just too many people, and so many ideas previously exclusive to MMOs have become standard in so many other genres anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on March 15, 2014, 09:01:31 AM
Tried an Imperial Templar this time.  Made it to level 3, and quit when I had to go kill some assassins on a boat, and there was a dozen plus people milling around waiting to kill it as soon as it spawned.  I'll just stick to playing Oblivion, and Skyrim.


I predict this will be voted the Best New Game of 2004.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 15, 2014, 10:05:26 AM
I like it.  I would like it better if it were a single player game on my 360, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 15, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
In that case it's easier to just play Skyrim.  That's what I plan on doing.

Still, I like this game way, waaaaaay more than Wildstar but I also still don't think it's in a state where it's worth paying any money to play.  I'm entertained enough to play it for free, though.  Sadly, it's still the animations in general and lack of combat feedback animations specifically that are the game's biggest problems in my opinion, and I don't see those changing anytime soon.  When has an MMO ever had a big animation upgrade?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on March 15, 2014, 11:30:33 AM
I also agree that it's been years since any game was positioned as the savior of MMOs. But I don't think that's because nothing interesting has happened. Rather, it's because the medium has long since past the point where a single entry can be on the tip of the tongue for pundents. 'When was the last time most of us thought a single game was going to be for most of us? I would say it was even before AoC and WAR. It might have been WoW.

Eh, I'd say GW2 was trying to position themselves as the savior of the MMO.  All their hype around "No more trinity!", dynamic questing, exploration, etc...  They hyped it up as the best thing that would ever happen (and of course fell flat).



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on March 15, 2014, 12:30:50 PM
GW2 delivered the ingredients of what they promised to a large extent though, it's mostly that the whole mix of those ingredients wasn't quite as exciting as a lot of people wanted it to be.
Apart from all their over-confident bluster about "E-sports pvp", which never even came close to what they hoped/promised/deluded themselves into believing.

Expectations are a lot higher than they once were though, which is only logical as a lot of MMOs have passed by that nailed 1 or 2 things and then just failed or delivered 'meh' on everything else. 
So now for an MMO to be seen as 'The MMO' they'd pretty much have to combine all those things?
So promise Tera combat, with GW2 exploration and open world questing, SWG housing, CoX character creation, TSW atmosphere and world design, ...
WoW had to do a lot less very well to be the pinnacle of polish.

With the games in that list there was at least one interesting thing about each, which made them worth being made and being bought to me.
Wildstar/ESO though; I just can't find a single reason why these games needed to be made and certainly none why I would play them beyond beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 15, 2014, 01:25:36 PM
Weirdly, I felt like GW2's main selling point to me wasn't all of that "changing MMOs" stuff but the subtle "you don't have to play it everyday" vibe. In that sense, the hype that came with it, for me, was like that of a single player game. I still love GW2, I just love it like I would a single player game.

Despite my love for it, having everything revolve around Scarlet Briar has been an enormous fuck up. Terrible Mary Sue character. Just awful and stupid from start to finish.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on March 15, 2014, 02:30:12 PM
Eh, I'd say GW2 was trying to position themselves as the savior of the MMO.  All their hype around "No more trinity!", dynamic questing, exploration, etc...  They hyped it up as the best thing that would ever happen (and of course fell flat).

My opinion as well. I was more eager for GW2 than I'd been for any MMG since... eh, well, 1999 I suppose. But for all the videos where devs stood before a camera and made earnest proclamations of lofty goals, the end result was not even as enjoyable as LotRO to me. The living world didn't. The personal story wasn't. A crushing disappointment everywhere save the combat (which Neverwinter, IMO, has since surpassed).

Last year I wrung far more enjoyment from games that didn't claim to be The Next Last MMG You'll Ever Want - Neverwinter and Defiance. I went in expecting no more than fun, got fun, and while I did leave both, I left with no rancor and an mind open to later return. Not so with GW2, sadly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 15, 2014, 03:28:34 PM
I am still baffled that i had more fun in this game than Wildstar  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 15, 2014, 03:37:59 PM
I think it's because one thing this game does much better than Wildstar is hiding the grind.  Even though leveling is much slower in TESO, it's actually more fun to go out and do things since most of the quests have you going out after a particular goal, instead of the Wildstar approach of kill X foozles, then kill Y moogles, etc, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 15, 2014, 03:50:10 PM
I am still baffled that i had more fun in this game than Wildstar  :awesome_for_real:

Same here, although I word kind of like: "I am still baffled I had less not-fun in this game than Wildstar".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 15, 2014, 03:54:19 PM
True. But comparing with the bleak blandness that was Wildstar, I had at least a little bit of fun in TESO.

edit: At least it invoked some emotions. Ok, most of them were negative, but hey.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on March 15, 2014, 04:35:31 PM

If GW2 wanted to be the "next huge thing" it would have been a sub game. They do things their own way, casual PvE, dreams of competitive PvP and a lot of boneheaded design decisions. I still love the art and world though.

I wonder where Blizzard are with Titan / WoW2. I'd assumed it was being held ready for when WoW started seriously slipping but the last news indicated it was so bad the development process was being re-started.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 15, 2014, 04:52:35 PM
Yeah, that was also a year ago. They dumped a 100+ person team down to 30 and redistributed the rest of the people or let them go.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124406-Blizzard-Restarts-Titan-Project-Wont-See-Release-Until-2016

Conventional wisdom seems to be that they didn't foresee the rise of F2P/ P2W games in 2011 and had to reassess that as well as a lackluster game system. Everyone laughs at the notion they'll have anything by 2018, much less 2016.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 15, 2014, 05:01:01 PM

If GW2 wanted to be the "next huge thing" it would have been a sub game. They do things their own way, casual PvE, dreams of competitive PvP and a lot of boneheaded design decisions. I still love the art and world though.

I wonder where Blizzard are with Titan / WoW2. I'd assumed it was being held ready for when WoW started seriously slipping but the last news indicated it was so bad the development process was being re-started.

GW2's PVE is anything but casual at this point. The hours required to complete the meta-achievements on a lot of their story events are insane.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 15, 2014, 06:27:30 PM
Yes and that's really disappointing.Love the base game but the patches after SUCKED.Casual solo? GTFO


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 15, 2014, 06:47:03 PM

If GW2 wanted to be the "next huge thing" it would have been a sub game. They do things their own way, casual PvE, dreams of competitive PvP and a lot of boneheaded design decisions. I still love the art and world though.

I wonder where Blizzard are with Titan / WoW2. I'd assumed it was being held ready for when WoW started seriously slipping but the last news indicated it was so bad the development process was being re-started.

GW2's PVE is anything but casual at this point. The hours required to complete the meta-achievements on a lot of their story events are insane.

The past several months every meta achievement can be earned by finishing one easy daily every day, it does not get any more casual than that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 15, 2014, 07:11:25 PM
Well, except for the part about having to log in EVERY SINGLE DAY.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on March 15, 2014, 10:55:53 PM

... you don't actually, exploring the event gets you most of the way and one daily (the one tied to the event) a couple of times makes it easy to finish off. Much easier if you don't wait till the event is stale and interest has faded though.

GW2 does have at least one designer who dreams of making it a raid game, but they're mostly just winging it erratically and have a natural talent for poor design choices.

It's a shame though, I thought GW2 had a plan for a casual / exploratory (albeit probably tedious) end-game but it's become evident since launch no one has solved the problem of keeping people interested long term.  Wildstar is happy to copy vanilla wow. I've no idea if TESO even has a plan, let along a novel one. It sounds like the testing was kept to the low level portions of the game (and that's probably where they focused all their attention and resources).



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 16, 2014, 05:24:24 AM
I know a couple folks in the internal test and they speak very highly of most of the higher level stuff. Which surprised me, honestly, but I'm finding that, even now, I'm liking the game much more as I level. The quests are more varied and interesting, the dungeons are actually decent, crafting becomes more interesting, PvP is above average to very good. They put an awful lot of bland suck in the early game and it's going to cost them. Very weird decisions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on March 16, 2014, 06:02:29 AM
Since both of these sound like flops what's the next big hope on the MMO horizon?
There isn't one, and that's a good thing. Maybe people taking stock of where we are now rather than betting on the next Great WoW-killer might lead to more interesting games. Hell, that was pretty much what SOE did with EQN and now look at them.

Despite my love for it, having everything revolve around Scarlet Briar has been an enormous fuck up. Terrible Mary Sue character. Just awful and stupid from start to finish.
There was exactly one good thing about Scarlet, and that was the insane shit-eating grin her corpse has after her "You are too late" death.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 16, 2014, 07:41:57 AM
I couldn't even bear to finish the Lion's Arch invasion storyline to see her dead, and I really admire the balls on display when they blew shit up, even if it ends up being temporary. Scarlet Briar is the fucking worst. Leave the zany, bad voice acted, Malkavian from 1996 crazy lady back in 1996.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 16, 2014, 07:43:53 AM
Played the game some more this weekend and realized maybe half of the reason it didn't have a skyrim feel was my fault (the rest was theirs).  When I played previously, since it's an mmo, I immediately put myself into mmo mode and went exactly where the quest wanted me to until it was finished and I was sent to the next quest hub.  Just brutally efficient "burn through content", don't bother reading the quest text mode.

This weekend I decided to just do my own thing and explore which is much more like how you play skyrim, oblivion and so on.  I found all sorts of neat little areas, treasure chests and crafting mats where the quests don't send you and then I even found a few small quests.  Figured out the crafting system.  It was much better.

Maybe I'll even actually read the quest text when it launches :-).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 16, 2014, 08:16:23 AM
I go very slow.  I always go slow.  I read all the notes and books and sometimes I get my kitty cats to act out the different roles.  Maybe that's why I prefer games like this to be single player with multi-player options.  Anyway, I like the whole interact with almost anything style so I'll keep giving it a slow whirl.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 16, 2014, 09:05:35 AM
Well, except for the part about having to log in EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Not at all, there are plenty of achievements you get just for showing up, the daily ones are to fill in for the harder skill/collaboration/grindy ones.  Obviously playing casually still involves actually playing game, but they've made it as easy as possible without just handing it to everyone the minute they log in.  It really should not be a challenge for anyone who plays a few hours a week to finish any of the metas since they added the daily ones at least four-five months ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 16, 2014, 04:57:03 PM
It seems like there is a generic bug where if too many people do the same quest (it can happen to any quest) important mobs, items or interactables just stop respawning.  People who played Friday were fine, Saturday there were problems, if you started playing Sunday a good one third of the quests couldn't be done.  They need to fix this shit by launch or implement server restarts every six hours.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Der Helm on March 16, 2014, 05:06:51 PM
It seems like there is a generic bug where if too many people do the same quest (it can happen to any quest) important mobs, items or interactables just stop respawning.  People who played Friday were fine, Saturday there were problems, if you started playing Sunday a good one third of the quests couldn't be done.  They need to fix this shit by launch or implement server restarts every six hours.
Heh. Was chat still full of "this is BETA, noob", "lol, this is not the newest build" and "this is why they stress test the servers before launch" ?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 16, 2014, 05:25:00 PM
Played the game some more this weekend and realized maybe half of the reason it didn't have a skyrim feel was my fault (the rest was theirs).  When I played previously, since it's an mmo, I immediately put myself into mmo mode and went exactly where the quest wanted me to until it was finished and I was sent to the next quest hub.  Just brutally efficient "burn through content", don't bother reading the quest text mode.

This weekend I decided to just do my own thing and explore which is much more like how you play skyrim, oblivion and so on.  I found all sorts of neat little areas, treasure chests and crafting mats where the quests don't send you and then I even found a few small quests.  Figured out the crafting system.  It was much better.

Maybe I'll even actually read the quest text when it launches :-).
Yeah, I suspect my experience with it was pretty pleasant precisely because I spent lot of my time bumbling about between the main storyline quests, and running into things at own lazy pace. Similar to how my Skyrim experience went.

And their quest texts were so short, it wasn't really a problem to read it either. I did however presume the book stuff was 90%-to-all copy-pasta from the previous ES titles, so just clicked through those.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 16, 2014, 06:54:42 PM
It seems like there is a generic bug where if too many people do the same quest (it can happen to any quest) important mobs, items or interactables just stop respawning.  People who played Friday were fine, Saturday there were problems, if you started playing Sunday a good one third of the quests couldn't be done.  They need to fix this shit by launch or implement server restarts every six hours.
Heh. Was chat still full of "this is BETA, noob", "lol, this is not the newest build" and "this is why they stress test the servers before launch" ?
Yes...

Much faith in the miracle patch it seems.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 16, 2014, 07:35:56 PM
It seems like there is a generic bug where if too many people do the same quest (it can happen to any quest) important mobs, items or interactables just stop respawning.  People who played Friday were fine, Saturday there were problems, if you started playing Sunday a good one third of the quests couldn't be done.  They need to fix this shit by launch or implement server restarts every six hours.
Heh. Was chat still full of "this is BETA, noob", "lol, this is not the newest build" and "this is why they stress test the servers before launch" ?

Pretty much, yes.  If not verbatim, then in spirit.  But my favorite was how many said that the quests were disabled by the devs so people wouldn't be spoiled.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on March 16, 2014, 10:11:27 PM
Fun weekend, managed to get the next tier of dungeons completed with a couple friends, think I liked Darkshade caverns the most as you got to fight some boss dwemer automatons. The last boss in Elden Hollow took us about an hour to beat as the three of us couldn't output enough damage for once. The sewers in Wayrest were kinda boring as they were fighting mostly people in cramped sewers, although it did have a Rat Whisperer.

Right now their main focus needs to be getting the mega server issues sorted out as quests are breaking left and right all over the place, at least in Daggerfall land. Same thing with Dark anchors. I'm pretty positive they won't be able to though, so launch is going to go as swimmingly as ever. And while I didn't PvP at all this time, I also hear the lag pains in Cyrodiil are quite present in the huge zergathons.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on March 17, 2014, 04:05:25 AM
Quote
Much faith in the miracle patch it seems.

It's widespread to the point where I wonder if it isn't being intentionally spread. I have some Facebook friends. They're gamers, but not quite as jaded and industry savvy as people here, and they've heard about this miracle patch and they don't actually follow games enough to know this is a common meme for a failed game about to launch, so they're taking it at face value.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 17, 2014, 11:38:33 AM
GMG emailed me this:

Quote
The Elder Scrolls Online is only 3 weeks away, and now you can get $12 off the Imperial Edition or $9 off the Standard Edition with the vouchers* below! So if you still haven’t got the most anticipated MMO in recent times, then now’s your chance.
$12 off Imperial: CE1WXQ-2PQZSH-UDJEQS
$9 off Standard: S8JTAB-9MR960-R9PKJR
Ready yourself for Tamriel by pre-purchasing now and receive a whole raft of bonuses including early access!

if anyone is interested in getting it. 

Do they have an actual beta or have they always just been beta weekends for anyone who has a code?  I'm also not sure what good early access is in a game like this.  Is there any benefit?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 17, 2014, 11:49:04 AM
All the beta weekends are over, but there is still an internal beta that codes won't get you in.

Early access is beneficial just like an other MMO. Jump in and get ahead of the crowds of people. One of the faults of the megaserver tech is that so many people and so many phased areas of the game fuck quests up so they might bug out. But if you're ahead of the curve you could avoid the clusterfuck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 17, 2014, 12:02:46 PM
Or just wait a month for 75% of the people to quit.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Chimpy on March 17, 2014, 01:20:05 PM
Or just wait a month for 75% of the people to quit.  :why_so_serious:

Or wait 3 months and pay half price (or less.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 17, 2014, 02:07:13 PM
It seems like there is a generic bug where if too many people do the same quest (it can happen to any quest) important mobs, items or interactables just stop respawning.  People who played Friday were fine, Saturday there were problems, if you started playing Sunday a good one third of the quests couldn't be done.  They need to fix this shit by launch or implement server restarts every six hours.

Funny enough, TOR had the exact same problem in its beta as it ramped up and got more people in it.

Are they still using the Hero Engine, or did they swap to something completely different? If it's still Hero Engine, it could possibly be a common flaw in the thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 17, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
I see the point of early access for something like Landmark because if you want to play from the launch you need to find a good claim.  But most of the rest?  You might have a chance of getting your favourite name and maybe you'll beat the questy level rush in the early stages but then half those people (in my case, all those people) will be up your butt in no time flat.  I change my character at least three or four times before I decide on the one I want as my main character anyway.  I just don't see the allure of early access in the vast majority of games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on March 18, 2014, 06:01:21 AM
I see the point of early access for something like Landmark because if you want to play from the launch you need to find a good claim.  But most of the rest?  You might have a chance of getting your favourite name and maybe you'll beat the questy level rush in the early stages but then half those people (in my case, all those people) will be up your butt in no time flat.  I change my character at least three or four times before I decide on the one I want as my main character anyway.  I just don't see the allure of early access in the vast majority of games.

It's for the Raistlin and Drizzt lottery.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 18, 2014, 07:55:56 AM
I see the point of early access for something like Landmark because if you want to play from the launch you need to find a good claim.  But most of the rest?  You might have a chance of getting your favourite name and maybe you'll beat the questy level rush in the early stages but then half those people (in my case, all those people) will be up your butt in no time flat.  I change my character at least three or four times before I decide on the one I want as my main character anyway.  I just don't see the allure of early access in the vast majority of games.

For me personally, I don't have time for new game rushes anymore because I have a 11 month old daughter now. But for the "I change my character at least three or four times", I do that in beta weekends/close betas so by the time release rolls around I have that out of my system.

In any case, if you don't care about the initial rush/race, then the head start just means you get to play the game sooner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on March 18, 2014, 08:45:46 AM
Recently (in the past 5 years or more) people get early access to try to get to the max level before the game is officially released.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Count Nerfedalot on March 18, 2014, 02:07:16 PM
Sometimes it can give you a chance to play a class you like before all the fun gets nerfed out.

Or some folks like to play the economy game with the advantage of higher level characters thus easier access to resources than the bulk of the herd. And make some money before even the rarest resouces become commodities.

And of course there's always those who have more cents than sense. :)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 18, 2014, 03:05:20 PM
I like the early rush because of a) the enthusiasm and most especially b) the game before the nerds ring all joy and fun out of it by spreadsheeting everything to death. Not that I'm opposed to figuring out systems, but MMOs take it to another level of autistic unfun. And, if there's any game which that will kill, it's this one. The only way it's fun now is to take it kind of slowly rather than do the rush/grind/grats mentality.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 18, 2014, 03:07:56 PM
Uh, they ripped out the starter zones other than Coldharbour apparently? Did we see this?

http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/03/14/eso-road-ahead

EDIT: I guess you can still go there, it just doesn't force you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on March 18, 2014, 03:36:01 PM
I realize those zones are still there but... in a way, sounds like hours and hours of work (from concept artists to level designers) basically wasted even before the service goes live  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 18, 2014, 03:39:41 PM
Yeah the last beta weekend had you go straight to your faction's starting city.  I went back and explored the old zone and had more fun playing it that way.  People will visit the zones to get the skyshards at the very least.

I like being part of the headstart so that I can help out other people when they start by giving items, advice and answering questions.  On a more selfish note I prefer it when the zones aren't crammed full of people too, although since this game is doing the megaserver/instance thing it is less of an issue.  So long as they fix that mob/critical_item spawn bug...

I might even take a couple days of vacation, it's been a while since I've done that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sobelius on March 18, 2014, 07:34:23 PM
The game has tried to do one thing I appreciate: making change visible in the world based on whatever I've completed.  Storywise it adds quite a bit -- especially noticed it in the Aldmer queen story where you're under suspicion until you take care of the true villain. Not perfectly handled, but I appreciate the effort and effect. Also like the way the NPCs move around during the story -- they aren't rooted to one location.

Also like the crafting system, especially the "set piece" crafting workstations (of which I only ever found one).  For those interested, be sure to research traits and to unlock enchantments. Best way to craft weapons and armor tailored to your skill/playstyle focus.

Liked how effective it is to run as a duo. Friend and I both ran Dragonknights and took different skills -- he'd pull them in with the chain skill and I'd knock 'em down with stonefist, then use dark talons so he could fire off the Impale synergy. We were level 8 and taking out level 13-15 stuff with some careful play.

Solo-wise I'm going Templar. The combo of healing, plus ranged dps skills and either 2-H or dual wield for melee was great fun.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 18, 2014, 09:41:49 PM
I realize those zones are still there but... in a way, sounds like hours and hours of work (from concept artists to level designers) basically wasted even before the service goes live  :oh_i_see:

It's not wasted if it improves retention.  I personally did not make it past these starter islands.  When the game is $20 a box or f2p, I'll try it again to see how the new player experience is better. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 19, 2014, 05:13:57 AM
When the game is $20 a box or f2p, I'll try it again to see how the new player experience is better. 

It won't be.  When the designers basically say "We've added the ability to skip the new player area" that suggests that they have no interest in fixing it in any way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on March 19, 2014, 06:54:28 AM
It won't be.  When the designers basically say "We've added the ability to skip the new player area" that suggests that they have no interest in fixing it in any way.

Eh that's not true.  That's more of an admittance that the problems with the new player area are very deep and not trivial to fix (which is the truth).  It will take a lot of time and resources to redo the new player area to not suck, and no game has that kind of resources this close to release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 19, 2014, 07:02:51 AM
Eh that's not true.  That's more of an admittance that the problems with the new player area are very deep and not trivial to fix (which is the truth).  It will take a lot of time and resources to redo the new player area to not suck, and no game has that kind of resources this close to release.

They really should find the resources.  If a game is fun immediately, that helps with retention... a lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 19, 2014, 07:12:45 AM
The main problem wasn't so much content as it was scope. Every TES game, you get out of the prison, you see sunlight, and the world is vast and open. The prison is the noobie experience. TESO said "okay, prison is noobie experience but have another noobie experience on top of that!"

Things are still gated by level, of course, which automatically makes it smaller than TES, but it's still substantially bigger and more open the second you hit the main continent than it is on those fucking islands. This is an okay decision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 19, 2014, 07:17:15 AM
This is an okay decision.

We'll see 6 months after release if you're right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 19, 2014, 07:51:48 AM
Well, the only two realistic options at this point are leave it in or make it optional. They're not going to redo it. At least there's some indication that they're flexible with this decision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 19, 2014, 08:11:00 AM
Recently (in the past 5 years or more) people get early access to try to get to the max level before the game is officially released.

And then immediately go "Whah!!!! We have nothing to do!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sobelius on March 19, 2014, 02:16:39 PM
They kind of half-assed the skipping of the starter area.

Friend created a new toon on only his second beta weekend. He said the opening sequence just dumped him in Daggerfall with a few items and that was that. No "next quest" to do and nothing in Daggerfall offered him quests.  They didn't indicate in-game that he had the option to return to the starting islands or how to do so.

I'm an explorer-type, so I would have just thought to go explore or find a ship to take me to the islands. But he's not an explorer, more an achiever, and he thought offering no indication of what to do next, or even where to head, was bewildering.

Shrug. I'm also tired of the prisoner/shipwrecked refugee/returned-from-the-dead tropes so many games use as starting points. (Despite all of SWTOR's shortcomings, at least it put you in the game right away.)

It might have been much more interesting to throw us into the middle of the struggle in Cyrodil instead, and forcing us to pick our side/alliance that way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 19, 2014, 03:40:13 PM
That's kind of weird because I did a new character at the tail end for Daggerfall and it was cool. I woke up, it bumped me to level 3, ghost dude talked to me and told me to either go to the Harborage or to go to the wharf if I wanted to go back to the island. Could get quests no problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 19, 2014, 03:50:05 PM
They tell you inside the ghost dude's conversation quest text so if you don't read that, you'll be confused.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 19, 2014, 06:38:00 PM
Surely you're not suggesting that people should read the quest text?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 19, 2014, 07:36:10 PM
Surely you're not suggesting that people should read the quest text?

 :heart:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 20, 2014, 10:44:31 AM
Well, the only two realistic options at this point are leave it in or make it optional. They're not going to redo it. At least there's some indication that they're flexible with this decision.

The grand majority of people who tested the game did not make it out of those horrible newbie islands, the ones who did make it out mostly had a much improved perception of the game.  It wasn't a very hard choice really.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 20, 2014, 02:17:49 PM
Patch notes. (http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/20uypv/patch_0182_notes/)  They claim to have figured out the widespread item/mob/npc not respawning once there are too many people playing bug.  There is some ama where they also said it will be more clear where to go after the tutorial and that you will have more weapon choices during the tutorial.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 20, 2014, 04:00:58 PM
The grand majority of people who tested the game did not make it out of those horrible newbie islands, the ones who did make it out mostly had a much improved perception of the game.  It wasn't a very hard choice really.

Yep. I was totally on the "fuck this" tip until I got further in. So many people I know didn't even make it out of the tutorial islands.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 20, 2014, 04:07:43 PM
I think what bugged me was once I got out of one... I landed in another one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on March 20, 2014, 07:14:41 PM
I think what bugged me was once I got out of one... I landed in another one.
This. There's the "lolzurded" tutorial, followed by another awful noobie experience. I lost interest very quickly and uninstalled.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 20, 2014, 08:20:14 PM
No doubt. The prison being shit followed by the island being shit was absolutely insane.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 20, 2014, 10:54:09 PM
Wasn't there also a THIRD newbie zone?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on March 21, 2014, 12:30:21 AM
There was for Daggerfall and Ebonheart if you include Coldharbour's prison escape. Dominion's were combined into one larger island.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on March 21, 2014, 06:06:42 AM
Wasn't there also a THIRD newbie zone?

I don't think so? When I say newbie zone in this instance I mean the prison and then the "I have been shipwrecked on a tiny island until level 3" bit, not the extended first mainland zone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 21, 2014, 06:41:07 AM
Depends what you consider the first mainland zone, which is probably different per faction.  Daggerfall people went tutorial prison->desert island->orc island->then, finally daggerfall city in glenumbra.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 21, 2014, 07:01:08 AM
No one brought up they stripped out basically all the addon API? Now you can't see your own buffs, debuffs or buffs and debuffs on your target. This means as a healer you can't see your HOTs on you or your group mates. You don't know when to purge.

When you get damage all you see is "X Damage" not X fire/cold/holy damage. No abilities names or anything. I don't think there is even a cast bar any more.

lol


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 21, 2014, 07:10:24 AM
Yeah I like to hope they didn't understand the side effects of disabling that.  It's pretty stupid.  I can see the argument (but don't agree with it) that you shouldn't be able to see enemy player's stamina, buffs or what they are casting but you absolutely need to be able to see the dots and healing you do to others.

Only significant amount of pvp I've done in the last few years was in WoW where you can see info on everything your enemy is casting so I don't see the big deal.

I mean at the very least player info should only be hidden in cyrodil so that if you're doing a dungeon you know what the hell is going on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 21, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
There's one example I use when pointing out how pants on head retarded this is. Sorcs get a spell called Crystal Fragment. Outside of it's normal damage/effects it gives the player a chance to proc on any spell cast the ability to cast this spell instantly and for 50% less mana. If you get a proc two things used to happen:

1) You get a buff on you for 10 seconds telling you that you can now cast the spell at reduced cost and cast time.
2) Your hands glowed purple.

Now as a new player, you will randomly see your hands glowing purple. How many people will figure out that this is the proc? I don't doubt many will especially since your hands/body get glowly with other effects.

--

The latest change on the PTS now is that if you're a healer, you get no experience in a group. In order to gain experience, you have to have at least damaged the target once. So healers have to tag targets instead of just healing people.

They changed it TO this. This isn't broken, it's just terrible gameplay and design. They're fucking stupid over there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 21, 2014, 11:37:27 AM
Wasn't there also a THIRD newbie zone?

I don't think so? When I say newbie zone in this instance I mean the prison and then the "I have been shipwrecked on a tiny island until level 3" bit, not the extended first mainland zone.

My Nord went from Prison Place->Nord Island Place->Little Dark Elf Farmland/Town Place, and I was not yet at the 'ok here's the open world finally'. Was still all just linear script land up to that point, zones seemed to be about the same size. I guess the 3rd one was a little bigger, but it definitely wasn't 'ok we've taken the shackles off' yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 21, 2014, 12:17:32 PM
I didnt mind the "newbie" island at all. I fucking hate Coldharbor. I think this is the worst game into zone ever. Its everything Elder Scrolls historically is not. Its very confined, and boring and makes no sense.

Fuck that place. I was really excited when they said we could skip the newbie zone, I thought they meant Coldharbor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on March 21, 2014, 12:29:56 PM
You can skip coldharbour after you've done it once, it takes like 10 minutes or less anyways.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 21, 2014, 12:35:13 PM
Yeah, Coldharbor was stupid and terrible.  Just really, really bad.  I didn't mind the newbie island.  If they had time to rework the beginning of the storyline, they would have been much better served to have you start off just being washed up onto the shore of the newbie island and find out what happened to you along the way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 21, 2014, 12:46:23 PM
Who designed newbie island and thought it was a good idea?  It's terrible and suggests that the dev team has a huge disconnect between what they think is fun and what the playerbase thinks is fun.   The story is bad.  The gameplay is bad.  The NPC's are terrible.  The whole flow of it feels dull and dated.  

When I logged onto City of Heros for the first time, I got to run into a group of thugs and lay some smack on them.  I felt like I was a novice hero.  When I could fly, I felt like I was an aspiring hero.  When I got into my 30's, I felt like I was a real hero.  I get absolutely none of that visceral connection with this game.  Sure, I could lay the smack down on some wolves when I hit level 10.... but it felt more like an annoyance than an adventure.  

Elder scrolls, Morrowind, and Skyrim were all good games where I felt like an adventurer in a vast world creating my own destiny.  ESO feels more like I'm a participant in MST3K.  I'm trapped in a shell watching an old B-movie.  

In other words...

(http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/1f6ec6a15815_A33C/oldmanyellsatcloud_thumb.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on March 21, 2014, 04:11:44 PM
I know that if you don't love it, there is no chance I will like it.  Much like the WoW expansion thread, I am grateful for the burden lifted.  I am free to continue the search.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 21, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
I'm likely to give it a go but some things (mostly already mentioned) bother me.  Like no AH and going off to do a quest and having to use a lever or something and there's people milling about or using the levers... there's no way to retain immersion with that stuff going on.  It's just weird.  I already played Skyrim and Oblivion and I generally like those sorts of games so I guess I'll just have to see if there's enough of that to keep me interested.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 21, 2014, 04:39:08 PM
I know that if you don't love it, there is no chance I will like it. 

I will confess that one of the guys I pvp with absolutely loves ESO.  He played last beta weekend and did nothing but destroy people in pvp.  That may be the only thing that causes me to play this game.  I don't think I could endure the PvE for long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 21, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
I agree that PvP is their only shot to succeed. For better or worse.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on March 21, 2014, 06:26:32 PM
I wanted to try the pvp, but I couldn't even be bothered to slog my way to level 10.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: squirrel on March 22, 2014, 11:17:29 PM
Yeah I bought it cause some of the people I know raved about the PvP. So. I really doubt the PvP game will get the focus to be the next big thing but I can afford a month to check it out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on March 23, 2014, 06:55:18 AM
There's one example I use when pointing out how pants on head retarded this is. Sorcs get a spell called Crystal Fragment. Outside of it's normal damage/effects it gives the player a chance to proc on any spell cast the ability to cast this spell instantly and for 50% less mana. If you get a proc two things used to happen:

1) You get a buff on you for 10 seconds telling you that you can now cast the spell at reduced cost and cast time.
2) Your hands glowed purple.

Now as a new player, you will randomly see your hands glowing purple. How many people will figure out that this is the proc? I don't doubt many will especially since your hands/body get glowly with other effects.

--

The latest change on the PTS now is that if you're a healer, you get no experience in a group. In order to gain experience, you have to have at least damaged the target once. So healers have to tag targets instead of just healing people.

They changed it TO this. This isn't broken, it's just terrible gameplay and design. They're fucking stupid over there.
Well, at least the "bring back vanilla EQ!" grognards should feel at home now.  :awesome_for_real:
Also: Next time anyone bitches about about a dev team doing something dumb we've got a new "At least they didn't do X" contender.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 23, 2014, 08:08:22 AM
Well, at least the "bring back vanilla EQ!" grognards should feel at home now.  :awesome_for_real:
Also: Next time anyone bitches about about a dev team doing something dumb we've got a new "At least they didn't do X" contender.

I'd wiped that out of my memory until you reminded me.  Oh how I remember the clerics bitching their 1hb skill wasn't high enough to damage the mobs they were in group for, so they'd have to spend hours later killing low-levels and self healing.  Something about not enough spell slots to keep smite on the bar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 23, 2014, 03:50:37 PM
There's one example I use when pointing out how pants on head retarded this is. Sorcs get a spell called Crystal Fragment. Outside of it's normal damage/effects it gives the player a chance to proc on any spell cast the ability to cast this spell instantly and for 50% less mana. If you get a proc two things used to happen:

1) You get a buff on you for 10 seconds telling you that you can now cast the spell at reduced cost and cast time.
2) Your hands glowed purple.

Now as a new player, you will randomly see your hands glowing purple. How many people will figure out that this is the proc? I don't doubt many will especially since your hands/body get glowly with other effects.

--

The latest change on the PTS now is that if you're a healer, you get no experience in a group. In order to gain experience, you have to have at least damaged the target once. So healers have to tag targets instead of just healing people.

They changed it TO this. This isn't broken, it's just terrible gameplay and design. They're fucking stupid over there.
Well, at least the "bring back vanilla EQ!" grognards should feel at home now.  :awesome_for_real:
Also: Next time anyone bitches about about a dev team doing something dumb we've got a new "At least they didn't do X" contender.

What year is it? Lol This is going to be a glorious train wreck.  Off to invest in popcorn futures!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sobelius on March 24, 2014, 08:45:12 PM
Early Access info:

(from https://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4839)

WHEN WILL EARLY ACCESS BEGIN?

Updated 03/22/2014 12:53 AM             Published 01/28/2014 06:51 AM
The 5-day early access bonus that comes with pre-purchasing the digital Imperial and Standard Edition as well as the pre-order of the Physical Imperial Edition of The Elder Scrolls Online will begin on March 30, 2014. The 3-day early access bonus that comes with pre-ordering the Physical Standard Edition of The Elder Scrolls Online will begin on April 1, 2014.

More specifically, the following locations, dates, and times for the 5-day early access are:

North America (East): 7:00 AM EDT, Sunday March 30th
UK/IE: 12:00 PM WEST, Sunday March 30th
Central Europe: 1:00 PM CEST, Sunday March 30th
Sydney, Australia: 10:00 PM AEDT, Sunday March 30th
Singapore: 7:00 PM SGT, Sunday March 30th

The following locations, dates, and times for the 3-day early access are:

North America (East): 7:00 AM EDT, Tuesday April 1st
UK/IE: 12:00 PM WEST, Tuesday April 1st
Central Europe: 1:00 PM CEST, Tuesday April 1st
Sydney, Australia: 10:00 PM AEDT, Tuesday April 1st
Singapore: 7:00 PM SGT, Tuesday April 1st


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sobelius on March 27, 2014, 04:23:26 PM
ESO veteran content post:
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/03/26/esos-veteran-content?em_cmp=patch2us

Perhaps the typical marketing hype?  Perhaps some new ideas?

Nice to see someone thought about level 50+ content. Horse racing -- might be fun.

(SWTOR has a shit ton of people riding speeder bikes of all sorts and I keep wondering why there is no racing game? Instead we get a housing ( :uhrr:) expansion in SWTOR. Nothing says cash shop money sink like housing doo-dads.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on March 27, 2014, 04:59:33 PM
Because the speeders are all equal speed (based on level). 

I suppose they could implement variable speed capabilities for the speeders, but then the player base will expect them to be available outside the racing track so they can go faster from point A to point B.  Which may be ok to allow, because who cares about 3 seconds faster travel time.

Big issue, though, is that just like the SF sub-game doesn't support joystick, the racing game wouldn't support a steering wheel.  Mouse control is meh.

Though I suppose it just never occurred to them.  Maybe you should suggest it in the suggestions forum.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 28, 2014, 04:34:32 AM
Because the speeders are all equal speed (based on level). 
LotRO had horse racing event thing with all mounts having equal speed. The winner was whoever could lead their mount on the most optimal path and best dodge the obstacles. Though I know, rewarding player's skill and not gear advantage in a MMO seems crazy :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 28, 2014, 07:05:29 AM
They can nick the racing game from Clone Wars Adventures.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 28, 2014, 09:11:57 AM
Because the speeders are all equal speed (based on level). 
LotRO had horse racing event thing with all mounts having equal speed. The winner was whoever could lead their mount on the most optimal path and best dodge the obstacles. Though I know, rewarding player's skill and not gear advantage in a MMO seems crazy :oh_i_see:

Surprisingly, no, no... AMAZINGLY... I was good at this!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 28, 2014, 11:15:45 AM
(SWTOR has a shit ton of people riding speeder bikes of all sorts and I keep wondering why there is no racing game? Instead we get a housing ( :uhrr:) expansion in SWTOR. Nothing says cash shop money sink like housing doo-dads.)

Those crazy devs, giving people what they've been asking for since release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 29, 2014, 11:07:42 AM
I kind of doubt there will be an official bat country guild given most f13ers dislike of the game but if anyone wants to hang around a bunch of other mature, cynical MMO players I'm in a small family guild that's been around since original everquest and it should suit you.  We will be playing in the Daggerfall Covenant so that's a consideration.  While you can join guilds cross faction there isn't much point since you can't PvP or even PvE with eachother.  So long as you preordered you can play any race, otherwise Daggerfall is Breton/Orc/Redguard.

Just send a tell to @Stopgap for an invite, I should be on tomorrow at seven in the morning eastern with the other headstart people.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 29, 2014, 01:25:49 PM
Some friends and I are doing a guild on Aldmeri Dominion. Also a small guild, probably 15 to 20 members. Mostly ex mmo players who are now over 30 and have lives and such but still enjoy gaming. If any one is interested, can PM me or go to dreadguard.com.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on March 30, 2014, 04:10:16 AM
Not going to buy this right away.  It's fun to me, but there are things about the game that bug me.
-Looks like an xp grind to 50.
-Crafting is a real grind as well.
-Some of the mobs are tuned poorly for the level.
-Hard to find mats out in the world except ore.  Even with the glowing mat perk.
-The UI is TOO sparse.  I'd like some information on what I'm doing, not a lot mind you.
-The paywall locked Imperial is total bullshit.
-Guild Wars 2 does everything this game does for $10 less box and no sub.

I've grown tired of WoW keyboard combat, so here's a game that breaks the mold mostly and I pass on it.   :oh_i_see:

I will almost definitely pick this up in a couple of months, once it has its inevitable player implosion and the devs throw sparkly mud crab vanity pets at us and drop the sub.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 30, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
After so many insults, there's something that deserves to be said about this game: it's the first MMOPRG in a while that doesn't throw all its content at you right away. In the "new" starting areas there's already plenty of quests and zones that you are completely going to miss if you just follow the quest-hub dotted line, and that's gonna be your loss.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 30, 2014, 01:39:36 PM
In the "new" starting areas there's already plenty of quests and zones that you are completely going to miss if you just follow the quest-hub dotted line, and that's gonna be your loss.

Our loss how?  Is exploring rewarded in any way?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 30, 2014, 01:56:09 PM
Our loss how?  Is exploring rewarded in any way?

By letting you find more stuff to do?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 30, 2014, 02:00:54 PM
By letting you find more stuff to do?

In a single player game, that's awesome.  In an MMO, I want more to do at level cap.  Doing tired old level 5 quests when I'm level 10 doesn't make much sense unless I REALLY love the game world or I'm a completionist.  I see only one reason to PvE in ESO and that's to get gear/cash/abilities to PvP better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 30, 2014, 02:37:18 PM
I'm finding this game troublesome.  I wandered around, started some quests and suddenly everyone is cheering at me and I've somehow saved the day.  I don't even know what I did to save the day!  From what I've been able to figure out, I happened to walk into the same room as another player when he completed a quest we both had accepted even though I hadn't done anything yet.  I'm still in my prison clothes, ffs!  Also, watching the chat a bit and noticing a lot of people commenting about various quests being bugged.  I've also had to turn on player health lines because I can't tell the difference between players and npcs a lot of the time.  Except for the ones with arrows over their heads.  I don't think I've ever had that problem before.  I'm getting a little frustrated because I seriously don't know what's going on around me half the time.  Having said that, it runs fine and very quick even on the highest settings and resolution. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 30, 2014, 03:07:02 PM
The game rewards exploration in a moltitude of ways <<SO FAR>>, from more XP, more rewards, more money, more resources. At many points it tells you "if you want to move to the next area/quest, it's fine by me. Although there's probably a lot more you could have done around here...". That could be your thing or not, but sure there's many games which do it the other way, and very few (none?) that do it this way.

Also, again too soon to tell, but the crafting system seems very interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 30, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on March 30, 2014, 07:59:16 PM
Our loss how?  Is exploring rewarded in any way?
At least early on the best source of gear were the chests which you'd need to find on your own, they weren't where the main storyline quests would send you. Optional quests also provided the xp/rewards, and there's number of achievements which require to find certain spots in the zones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: squirrel on March 30, 2014, 10:39:13 PM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on March 31, 2014, 01:52:50 AM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.

I kind of like the idea (not necessarily the practical side) of crafting being something you have to invest in at the cost of your "fighting" strength.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on March 31, 2014, 02:20:47 AM
That's exactly what I'm doing. I've got about 18ish skill points into most of my crafting passives at level 17 right now, sans alchemy and provisioning at the moment, and all I've really lost is fighting versatility. Sucks sometimes but it'll grow out in the 20's. I just like crafting, and the option of being able to build this way and still fight well is fun to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 31, 2014, 02:29:08 AM
It was like that in the original SWG, wasn't it? I got to Master Tailor in a few days when the game came out and as a result I was printing money (and selling them on eBay for real cash because I was stupid) but couldn't adventure with my friends as a ladybug would have killed me. Not sure I like it here though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 31, 2014, 04:54:37 AM
Even by around level ten if you are only specializing in one subclass and one weapon type you start to have spare skill points available for things like crafting.  You also won't even notice the difference if you spend a couple points on crafting instead of your +3% regen passives.

You start the game being able to craft everything up to level 14 in every craft line without spending any points which is actually a lot more than most other games that force you to specialize in one or two professions.

In theorycrafting I have an idea that I might create seven alts, use the option to skip the tutorial zone making them all level 3, craft each of them up to level 3 blacksmith then buy all of them the hireling ability.  Now I'm getting sent mats each day from all my alts.  I'm going to try this with one alt first to see if it works.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 31, 2014, 06:13:45 AM
It was like that in the original SWG, wasn't it? I got to Master Tailor in a few days when the game came out and as a result I was printing money (and selling them on eBay for real cash because I was stupid) but couldn't adventure with my friends as a ladybug would have killed me. Not sure I like it here though.
To be fair, you could have spent your entire game life in SWG as some of their crafting or entertaining professions, and many people did.

I can't say if ESO has that trait, but I doubt it as pretty much every MMO expects crafting to be a side profession rather than a style of play.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on March 31, 2014, 06:54:28 AM
Having fun so far (but release day fun does not tell you much). Love the art style and overall ambience.  Like Signe, I had to fiddle with settings to tell pcs fron npcs.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 31, 2014, 07:41:41 AM
Installing Minion (http://minion.mmoui.com/) is very simple and basically a game changer.

Basic, mandatory stuff:

1 - Foundry Tactical Combat (http://www.esoui.com/downloads/info28-FoundryTacticalCombat.html)

Then go into the game settings and turn autoloot on, then install

2 - LootDrop (http://www.esoui.com/downloads/info35-LootDrop.html)

Makes the game up to 12.8% better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 31, 2014, 10:37:09 AM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.

Where are all those skill points coming from?  I was only getting one each time I leveled.  I'd occasionally get one from a 'main' quest but it still seemed like nowhere near enough to invest any in crafting when I also had a main weapon, armor and a couple of class lines to keep up with.  That's not even getting into when you get weapon swapping at 15.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 31, 2014, 11:25:03 AM
I logged in yesterday to make a few characters and reserve some names.  I then logged out to play Diablo 3 the rest of the day. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Morfiend on March 31, 2014, 01:23:31 PM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.

Where are all those skill points coming from?  I was only getting one each time I leveled.  I'd occasionally get one from a 'main' quest but it still seemed like nowhere near enough to invest any in crafting when I also had a main weapon, armor and a couple of class lines to keep up with.  That's not even getting into when you get weapon swapping at 15.


You receive additional skill points from reading books, finishing specific quests and from collecting Skyshards in the world. Each 3 Skyshards = 1 skill point. I believe there are siz shardes on the newbie island alone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on March 31, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
Where are all those skill points coming from?  I was only getting one each time I leveled.  I'd occasionally get one from a 'main' quest but it still seemed like nowhere near enough to invest any in crafting when I also had a main weapon, armor and a couple of class lines to keep up with.  That's not even getting into when you get weapon swapping at 15.

Lots of different ways.

- 1 from every level
- 1 for every 3 skyshards you acquire
- certain big quests in zones give you 1 upon overall completion
- whenever the prophet calls you back to do another quest of his you get 1 upon completion
- 1 for every PvP rank. you can 2 right when joining Cyrodiil and going through the PvP tutorial quest as it gets you to rank 2.
- 1 for the fist time you complete a dungeon's quest line
 -1 for completing a zone's public dungeon

Edit: Apparently the game already has its first level 50 after about 17 hours, hah.
Edit 2: added a few things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 31, 2014, 02:33:26 PM
If you're pretty much done with an area and you don't think you've found all the shards, Gamers Heroes (http://www.gamersheroes.com/game-guides/elder-scrolls-online-skyshard-guide-maps-one-page/) has maps showing the locations.  If you have treasure maps, they have those maps, too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: squirrel on March 31, 2014, 08:04:46 PM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.

Where are all those skill points coming from?  I was only getting one each time I leveled.  I'd occasionally get one from a 'main' quest but it still seemed like nowhere near enough to invest any in crafting when I also had a main weapon, armor and a couple of class lines to keep up with.  That's not even getting into when you get weapon swapping at 15.

Also, I meant to type with the shards, not without. There's 107 points or so if you collect all the shards (321).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 01, 2014, 12:44:28 PM
I'm enjoying some parts of the game like going through dwemer ruins with a npc in tow but most of those moments have very little to do with the mmo side of it (and would work just as well in Skyrim if not better). The pvp side has so far been lacking due to the absence of enemies (with "our side" dominating the map) but that will hopefully change once the pve leveling quiets down a bit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 01, 2014, 03:03:35 PM
Some how I've been able to mostly ignore the fact that there are people milling about a room or obviously doing the same quest I'm doing and play
it like a single player game.  Before, it was totally distracting.  Once I start getting distracted by people again, I'll have no problem leaving this behind
and just wait for the next single player Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Whatever game.  It's good fun for the time being, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2014, 03:27:51 PM
Apparently if you craft with a helmet on your helmet is gone.  That's SB level retarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 01, 2014, 07:31:44 PM
Apparently if you craft with a helmet on your helmet is gone.  That's SB level retarded.
Haven't seen that and I've crafted a lot and have four craft/mule alts...  You can hide your helm, I'm guessing the person who said that hid it and then forgot.

I'm having a lot of fun in this game.  The quests are great, the exploration is there, the mmo is half there.  I'd say it's as fun as Oblivion plus being able to play with friends.

There are a fare number of rookie mmo mistakes but the good outbalances the bad by a long shot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on April 01, 2014, 09:26:46 PM
I've had it happen to me, not every time but the last time I crafted a helmet my equipped one went poof.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 02, 2014, 01:02:46 AM
PvP so far, and I'd say "as usual", is a mixed bag and totally reliant on server population and behaviour. For example on our server one faction is dominating, which means there's a huge zerg of about 100+ of them taking all the resources. There is zero chance for my party of five friends to do anything other than PvE  ( :why_so_serious: ) in the PvP zone hoping to flip a few lumbermills for... no reason. And of course hope to find a few stray enemies to gank. This is pretty much what happened in GW2. It's either big zerg vs big zerg, which is quite OK, or you wander for hours in the PvP zone/Frontier bouncing from outnumbering to being outnumbered over and over and rarely having a fair fight.

It's not even a criticism to the game. Given a large PvP area, I can't really see how this could be fixed without more instances or arenas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 02, 2014, 03:52:58 AM
I was kind of impressed with how well the game has been holding up during the headstart serverwise as the megaserver idea seemed to be working (broken quests are another matter entirely).
... that was before the current maintenance hit the NA server without a prior warning (and has now been going on for over 6 hours).  :uhrr:

edit:as a bonus they are only saying that they are performing maintenance and giving no better explanation for the downtime


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on April 02, 2014, 07:27:44 AM
I've had it happen to me, not every time but the last time I crafted a helmet my equipped one went poof.

Apparently if you hit craft without having any specific item highlighted it salvages your helmet, because of reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 02, 2014, 07:38:45 AM
You don't need helmets!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 02, 2014, 07:54:39 AM
Not going to buy this right away.  It's fun to me, but there are things about the game that bug me.
-Looks like an xp grind to 50.
-Crafting is a real grind as well.
-Some of the mobs are tuned poorly for the level.
-Hard to find mats out in the world except ore.  Even with the glowing mat perk.
-The UI is TOO sparse.  I'd like some information on what I'm doing, not a lot mind you.
-The paywall locked Imperial is total bullshit.
-Guild Wars 2 does everything this game does for $10 less box and no sub.

I've grown tired of WoW keyboard combat, so here's a game that breaks the mold mostly and I pass on it.   :oh_i_see:

I will almost definitely pick this up in a couple of months, once it has its inevitable player implosion and the devs throw sparkly mud crab vanity pets at us and drop the sub.   

There is no more of an experience grind in this game than any other "modern" MMORPG. Do quests, get levels, 40+ hours later you are level 50 (then you do all the other faction quests for VR10). The fun thing is, you can also just grind mobs mindlessly if that's your thing and it can be as fast or faster if you find a sweet spot.

Who cares about crafting? Anyway, you should be deconstruction gear of your chosen profession to level up/get mats versus the gathering then crafting. It's a grind, but no more or less than any other profession. They put a twist on it for traits. Each trait takes real life hours/days to learn. Makes things interesting I suppose. The real pain in the ass is the rarity thing. Getting enough green/blue upgrade thingies is a pain.

Mobs tuned? The PVE in this game is laughably easy with any spec. Unless you are fighting with broken gear you shouldn't be having an issue with anything. Or maybe you skipped the newbie island and wandered to far into the first area without leveling?

UI is shit in this game. For real shits. If you care, here is how you make it better with addons:
Code:
Download Warlegends - Good HUD.
Download PBST - Good scrolling combat text. You can change font/size/color of stuff. Very basic version of some WOW SCTs. Should be improving as time moves on.
Download Wyykd's Framework - This gives you a good toolbar that you can put at the top of your screen to display a variety of info (AP, XP, Gold, Horse Feeding, Zone, Clock etc.)
Download FTC .23 - Disable everything but buffs. You can see your buffs/debuffs again! Yay work around. (FTC also has a combat text and HUD as well. I don't like the look personally)
Download Lootdrop - Shows loot that you pick up in your chatbox and in a separate panel.
Download Multiquest - Gives you the ability to track multiple quests at once on your screen. Kind of buggy, but works real well.

Apparently there is a minimap addon, but screws up the ability to port in the main map interface.

You can also download Minion from ZAM which is their version of curse's program that organizes your mods. With minion, you can have this set up in like 5 minutes or less.

As far as the imperial race thing, seems pretty standard money grab to me. I'm personally not offended by it but I guess people can whine about it if they like.

If you want to compare to GW2, I don't agree. GW2's class system is terrible and boring. ESO's class system and customization is probably the best on the market in my opinion. It's really the only reason why I picked up this game. TESO's WvW system is a 100x better than GW2's in my opinion. Did a lot of PVP on Sunday night. I thought it was much better, especially the sieging. It's pretty cool.

GW2 and TESO's PVE is an interesting discussion. I really like how TESO has a combo of instance dungeons and open world dungeons. There are small dungeons littered all over the map with quests and boss with drops in them. Really fun. GW2's group PVE is an awful experience, in my opinion. Their PVE world design is pretty cool though. We could probably get into a bigger discussion about that.

Whether this game is sub worthy or not is yet to be seen. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $15 to play another month. We'll see how I feel in 30 days.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 02, 2014, 07:56:48 AM
The biggest problem with the crafting system was having to invest the same skill points you use on all your combat abilities into improving the crafting skills.  They should really be separate systems.

My understanding - possibly wrong - is that you get enough skill points to max everything you could want, I think there's 320 skill points without the shards. Apparently it's not an issue overall, but yeah if you want to craft early on I can see how you could wind up in a bind with skill points.

304 with shards I believe. I spent a bunch of hours Sunday night getting all 45 skyshards in Cyrodil.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 02, 2014, 08:51:33 AM
I also agree with the UI being shite.  Don't forget, however, the game is open to addons and some of those that I've dl'd have made it better.  I use Lootdrop, Wykkyd Framework and some other of his stuff, MultiQuestTracker and the one that gives you an inventory grid.  Oh, and that minimap one which I love, too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 02, 2014, 09:55:54 AM
So finally after 12 hours of downtime they have an estimate of 1-2 hours (more) until the NA server is back up.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 02, 2014, 10:04:12 AM
Really cuts into that whole head start thingy which I'm not really sure is much of a reward anyway.  It just seems like a bit of fluff prize that doesn't really matter anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 02, 2014, 10:10:46 AM
Really cuts into that whole head start thingy which I'm not really sure is much of a reward anyway.  It just seems like a bit of fluff prize that doesn't really matter anyway.
The only reason I care is that I had time to play today from early on (which was more or less unexpected) and I've now been waiting 8 hours so far for the servers to get back up since they were unable to guess (or the CS really sucks) how long the maintenance would take before this latest announcement (almost 12 hours in to the maintenance)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on April 02, 2014, 10:23:44 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/aTvm5Gb.jpg?1)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 02, 2014, 10:48:16 AM
 :why_so_serious:

 :heart:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 02, 2014, 11:13:21 AM
Whether this game is sub worthy or not is yet to be seen. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $15 to play another month. We'll see how I feel in 30 days.

Damn you.  Until you wrote this line I was happy to be avoiding this game.  Knowing that we enjoy similar games,  I'm now considering buying this to dabble in for a month. 

Thanks for nothing!   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 02, 2014, 11:22:28 AM
It's just not that bad of a game! It's got issues and inexplicable decisions (oh auction house...) but it's got a solid core. Character progression is fun. And like Falc (I think it was Falc) said, it's one of the only MMOs which rewards you for not hitting it hard. It, like single player TES games, wants you to wander around a bit, listen to the voice acting, read the books, etc. That alone is breaking certain paradigms.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 02, 2014, 11:26:28 AM
Whether this game is sub worthy or not is yet to be seen. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $15 to play another month. We'll see how I feel in 30 days.

Damn you.  Until you wrote this line I was happy to be avoiding this game.  Knowing that we enjoy similar games,  I'm now considering buying this to dabble in for a month. 

Thanks for nothing!   :why_so_serious:

Siege warfare in this game is fucking good. It's still up in the air about 90 day campaigns and how they can stay competitive. The reason to play this game is the character builder. Love the class/skill system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 02, 2014, 11:39:12 AM
Siege warfare in this game is fucking good. It's still up in the air about 90 day campaigns and how they can stay competitive. The reason to play this game is the character builder. Love the class/skill system.

I loved the soul system in Rift until they homogenized it.  Perhaps this game would be a way to scratch that itch.  I saw the merits of the PvP system in beta, but still have concerns that balance will be a major issue in the future.  There are a few skill builds that will ultimately dominate pvp and I think that detracts from what interests me.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 02, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
If anything, 90 days at the moment feels like a problem because when a faction is winning big after a few days, and zerging the zone hard, you know very well that no one from the other two factions is gonna log at all. I hope they have some ways to incentivate the losing factions big, but there's a strong risk for some campagins to be active for 10 days and then dead for the other 80. I hope to be wrong.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 02, 2014, 11:44:25 AM
Well, I'm not sure that problem is solvable. I've seen the 'give up and stop RVRing' effect happen everywhere from GW2's 1 week matchups to DAOC's infinitely long matchups. I'm not sure there's a sweet spot to be found.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 02, 2014, 11:49:59 AM
From the outside it is easily solvable.  Change 90 days to something less than 90 days.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 02, 2014, 11:51:28 AM
People will still give up until the reset when they think they can't win, is what I mean. It doesn't matter where you set the days. I would guess longer might actually be better, depending on how they do the scoring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on April 02, 2014, 12:00:56 PM
90 days might actually serve as a zerg breaker of sorts in that there's no reason for a zerg for the long stretches of time that one side dominates.  The RvR zone is so huge and there's enough to do in it that small groups can just ignore the keeps and just do some dungeons or quests or shit. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 02, 2014, 12:13:18 PM
Siege warfare in this game is fucking good. It's still up in the air about 90 day campaigns and how they can stay competitive. The reason to play this game is the character builder. Love the class/skill system.

I loved the soul system in Rift until they homogenized it.  Perhaps this game would be a way to scratch that itch.  I saw the merits of the PvP system in beta, but still have concerns that balance will be a major issue in the future.  There are a few skill builds that will ultimately dominate pvp and I think that detracts from what interests me.



What builds are you seeing this with?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 02, 2014, 12:17:08 PM
This is an example. (http://tamrielfoundry.com/topic/the-infamous-unkillable-dk-build/)

I'm sure that there are others.  While the skill system does a decent job of balancing (i.e. solo builds are often crap for groups), I have my concerns that as the game ages you'll start seeing a few builds being strongly preferred over others.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Aza on April 02, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
This is an example. (http://tamrielfoundry.com/topic/the-infamous-unkillable-dk-build/)

I'm sure that there are others.  While the skill system does a decent job of balancing (i.e. solo builds are often crap for groups), I have my concerns that as the game ages you'll start seeing a few builds being strongly preferred over others.

This doesn't make sense, the video posted is a guy who was crowned Emperor in pvp (very difficult to do, and only 1 person gets it on the battlefield) and he is insanely buffed due to that. I'm not sure I understand why such poor information is being posted.

I am a fan of the game, but am not sure it's worth the effort to say much about it due to the strange steamroll of poor sentiments on this thread -- mainly stemming the lower levels/early stages of the beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on April 02, 2014, 02:35:52 PM
This is an example. (http://tamrielfoundry.com/topic/the-infamous-unkillable-dk-build/)

I'm sure that there are others.  While the skill system does a decent job of balancing (i.e. solo builds are often crap for groups), I have my concerns that as the game ages you'll start seeing a few builds being strongly preferred over others.

This doesn't make sense, the video posted is a guy who was crowned Emperor in pvp (very difficult to do, and only 1 person gets it on the battlefield) and he is insanely buffed due to that. I'm not sure I understand why such poor information is being posted.

I am a fan of the game, but am not sure it's worth the effort to say much about it due to the strange steamroll of poor sentiments on this thread -- mainly stemming the lower levels/early stages of the beta.

I think the sentiments have been pretty positive actually. Considering the train wreck I thought it was going to be anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Aza on April 02, 2014, 02:53:05 PM
This is an example. (http://tamrielfoundry.com/topic/the-infamous-unkillable-dk-build/)

I'm sure that there are others.  While the skill system does a decent job of balancing (i.e. solo builds are often crap for groups), I have my concerns that as the game ages you'll start seeing a few builds being strongly preferred over others.

This doesn't make sense, the video posted is a guy who was crowned Emperor in pvp (very difficult to do, and only 1 person gets it on the battlefield) and he is insanely buffed due to that. I'm not sure I understand why such poor information is being posted.

I am a fan of the game, but am not sure it's worth the effort to say much about it due to the strange steamroll of poor sentiments on this thread -- mainly stemming the lower levels/early stages of the beta.

I think the sentiments have been pretty positive actually. Considering the train wreck I thought it was going to be anyway.

True, I find myself agreeing with the last couple of pages of this thread.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 02, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
This is an example. (http://tamrielfoundry.com/topic/the-infamous-unkillable-dk-build/)

I'm sure that there are others.  While the skill system does a decent job of balancing (i.e. solo builds are often crap for groups), I have my concerns that as the game ages you'll start seeing a few builds being strongly preferred over others.

This doesn't make sense, the video posted is a guy who was crowned Emperor in pvp (very difficult to do, and only 1 person gets it on the battlefield) and he is insanely buffed due to that. I'm not sure I understand why such poor information is being posted.

I am a fan of the game, but am not sure it's worth the effort to say much about it due to the strange steamroll of poor sentiments on this thread -- mainly stemming the lower levels/early stages of the beta.

I think the sentiments have been pretty positive actually. Considering the train wreck I thought it was going to be anyway.

I also believe he's using the old form of the werewolf skill that allowed you to gain ultimate when you're hit with damage then you couple that with Battle Roar which heals you based on Ultimate spent. It's sense been nerfed. Before, all damage gave you ultimate points. Now that gain is on a 3s internal cooldown. Still great build, not nearly as sustainable.

In any case, a build like that did very little damage compared to a bolt sorc or bowplar or any other bursty build.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on April 06, 2014, 06:07:23 AM
This game is not letting me log in.

In turns out there is a queue to access the account management page of the official website:

(http://i.imgur.com/QJEeIlM.jpg?1)

Edit: And like every good MMO queue, the estimated time to wait is going up, not down.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 06, 2014, 06:14:22 AM
I just came to complain about the same bullshit.  Another rookie mmo mistake.

I am surprised by how much I am enjoying the actual game but the braindead mistakes they are making really takes away from it.  This is the first mmo in a long time that I actually wake up excited about playing.  Then I'm met with a fucking queue to enter my credit card info for a game that has four more weeks of free time left...

Oh as a bonus mistake they don't even give you an accurate error message when you log in, it says your account info is wrong.  So they are going to put a bunch of people in a tizzy resetting passwords or thinking they've been hacked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 06, 2014, 07:39:11 AM
So while I'm waiting in queue for an asinine reason I might as well write something.

The key to enjoying this game is playing it like the single player version, then incorporating the better parts of what draws people into mmos, mainly the other people.

The Good
  • If you play it as an explorer it really does have that open world sandbox feel.  If you just blow through the quest dialogue and only go where you're pointed to it feels like another grindy mmo.
  • Any direction you go you will find something.  Be it a quest or treasure chest or dark anchor (they are like rifts).
  • Most dungeons don't actually have quests to go there, much like skyrim.  You just get close enough, it shows up on your compass and you can discover it.  They have a little plot or purpose that you can read on scrolls left about to explain the enemy presence there.  Each has a miniboss and a skyshard giving very good reasons to go in even if you don't like exploring.
  • The whole world is beautiful.  Even the most remote places have nice little touches and flourishes.  I often just have to stop and look around for a few moments.  These moments usually lead me astray from what I was doing as I go investigate nooks and crannies.
  • Combat gets better once you have improved your abilities, unlocking the second weapon bar at level 15 helps a lot.
  • The quests are great.  They are well written and varied (for mmos) and make frequent use of npcs, ethical decisions, other dimensions/realities.  Persuade/intimidate options are sometimes used as well.
  • I very much like the main and guild quest lines, these are solo only instances with more dialogue.  Some of my friends who don't like dialogue of course find them long and boring.
  • Many of the npcs from past quests show up again later and remember the actions you took, for good or bad.
  • Well done phasing.  The pros and cons of phasing are a separate issue but I think this game strikes a good balance.  I like seeing that places I have quested through changed as a result.  I haven't yet had problems with grouping and having people not be able to meet each other (but it probably does happen).
  • Crafting isn't a dead simple affair but doesn't require you to create sixteen sub recipes to make a sandwich like in eq2.  It's a good enough balance.  There are crafting stations where you can make set pieces buy you have to have done research onto each item you want to craft first.
  • Crafting can be done using materials back in your bank.
  • It is hard to define why but I feel "drawn in" to this gaming world.  It reminds of how much I enjoyed the better parts of other mmos.
  • I have yet to do much pvp but most of the people I know that like pvp are pretty excited about it.  It is like an improved version of DAoC.
  • I've only done a couple dungeons but they were pretty good.  Not as carefully laid out and polished as the best WoW dungeons but they were quite enjoyable.  The bosses have mechanics, they aren't all just mindless tank and spank and the trash to get to them is acceptable but in my mind a bit too much.
  • The group size is only four and while you can tank or heal it is nothing like as strong as a dedicated role from other mmos.  It's somewhere in between a WoW like rigid role system and a guild wars2 "everyone is basically just dps" system.
  • The choice of skill lines and how they interact is fairly deep.  Most seem viable too, any subclass with any weapon can work.  I wouldn't say that any armour type will work depending on what your weapon/class is though.  If not, anyone can wear any armour so just switch.


The bad parts of the game just seem like a bunch of mistakes from people who have never done an mmo before.  Even most long time players could have foreseen problems like these.  I hope they will be fixed over time.

The Bad
  • Inventory.  They proudly tout having over six million items in the game, that's not super accurate since they are counting all the possible permutations of various status effects and such.  But you only have sixty bank slots and sixty bag space.  The bank is shared between all alts.  Both can be expanded a few times.  This is the first game since original everquest where I have had to make bank mules.  You get loot all the time which you want to break down, not sell so you need to keep it until you get back to a city.  Every desk and jar you open gives you some sort of item, usually just provisioning mats.  When you break items down they turn into 1-4 other crafting mats.  There are harvest nodes everywhere.  I am drowning in items.
  • Very few banker npcs.  For Daggerfall's first real zone there is exactly one banker npc.  You can't even see her because she is surrounded by players at all times.  She has one voiced line that is long and annoying and she spews it every time you talk to her.
  • I haven't felt this way but a common complaint is that with all the other people around it doesn't feel like skyrim.  The main plot along with the mages/fighters guild quests are solo instances but if you don't want to see other people in the dungeon you just found you will be out of luck until most players level past the zones.
  • It's like they didn't realize there would be gold spammers.  Every mmo that comes out today needs to have a right click option simply called "spam" that files a report and ignores that user account wide.
  • I have to change my key mappings and options on every single alt, instead of it just inheriting or being able to import.
  • No game wide auction house is just stupid.  There is no defense for this.  It's using the megaserver idea so maybe they just couldn't get it to work with that many users.  I remember guild wars 2 constantly being broken.
  • Can't send mail to alts.
  • You get more experience and level ups in crafting lines by destroying stuff than creating.  Backwards.
  • There are probably too many people per instance of each zone.  If they doubled the number of instances making all of them half as populated that would be about right.
  • Pets aren't bound, you have to keep them in you scarce inventory slots.
  • Either have a website strong enough to handle the load of everyone suddenly having to give their cc  info or don't make such an arbitrary and stupid demand.

There are other bad points that can be fixed with add ons like a mini map, windows showing bag space, a better quest tracker.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on April 06, 2014, 08:06:04 AM
Sounds like I would like it if I wasn't knee deep in a backlog.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 06, 2014, 08:13:59 AM
I'm enjoying some parts of the game like going through dwemer ruins with a npc in tow but most of those moments have very little to do with the mmo side of it (and would work just as well in Skyrim if not better). The pvp side has so far been lacking due to the absence of enemies (with "our side" dominating the map) but that will hopefully change once the pve leveling quiets down a bit.

I still feel like this after putting in some more hours. The quests feel alot better than those in GW2 once you get past the newbie part. As to why no mailing to alts I can understand that since there is no limit on where you can mail from so if you could mail to an alt you'd never really need to worry about inventory space.

I did some aoe-grinding with guildies and while it was faster than other forms of leveling it was kind of boring and I'll stick to questing as long as it feels like fun (once I start skipping the quest texts/voiceacting I know that it is time to move on to grinding instead of ruining the quests if I ever feel like going back to them)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 06, 2014, 08:31:19 AM
I am playing it solo despite having RL friends online at the same time and having bought the game because of them. They want to complete quests and gain levels, and all I want to do is explore every little corner of the map, read every book, open every little chest, get every skyshard, find every little secret and make sure I decoded every single treasure map. In a group the game is less fun because the fighting mechanics are chaotic and the lack of name plates doesn't help. But as a solo game I have to say, it's pretty engaging especially from an explorer perspective. Few things have been more rewarding in a MMORPG than finding an area unmarked on the map with its own quest, its own crafting station for unique set items, and its unique reward. Also, if you are Ebonheart, the Undaunted folks made my day. There's plenty of nice little gems that deserve to be uncovered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 06, 2014, 08:34:27 AM
I feel this way exactly, Miasma.  I didn't realise that I couldn't mail to alts and I'm disappointed by that.  I was counting on having some mules to help with inventory.  Bugger.  Everything else you said is spot on.  I have the addons... Wykkyd's stuff, the mini-map, inventory grid, etc., and it helps quite a bit.  I hate Hate HATE the quick starts.  It's fine for consoles but on a PC it's torture.  I need THAT addon NOW!  Other than those points and a few little things, like disappearing helmets, I love the game.  So far.  I'm not so naive to think they won't somehow fuck it over instead of smooth it over.  

I have noticed that since the last patch the camera staggers a bit now and then.  It doesn't affect the fps, which is awesome in this game, it's just a little jump now and then.  I joined a group only once but like you said, it was boring.  They just wanted to blow through everything and I wanted to read the books and look for stuff so I only lasted about 20 minutes but they did grind me out nearly a whole level.  I'll have to go back and do those quests with an alt.  I don't know what to do about a guild.  I need one for slow leveling solo players who just want a guild for extra bank space.   :grin:  

I'd recommend the game but only if you're patient enough to wait for some improvements and/or addons.  

PS  I agree, Drew.  Explorers will get quite a tingle from this game, and if they fix the little niggling bits... expect orgasms.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 06, 2014, 08:46:12 AM
You can use alts for mules but instead of simply mailing to them it is an annoying two step procedure where you put into the bank (which is shared) then log into the alt and withdraw.

What to do you mean by quick start?

I am playing it solo despite having RL friends online at the same time and having bought the game because of them. They want to complete quests and gain levels, and all I want to do is explore every little corner of the map, read every book, open every little chest, get every skyshard, find every little secret and make sure I decoded every single treasure map. In a group the game is less fun because the fighting mechanics are chaotic and the lack of name plates doesn't help. But as a solo game I have to say, it's pretty engaging especially from an explorer perspective. Few things have been more rewarding in a MMORPG than finding an area unmarked on the map with its own quest, its own crafting station for unique set items, and its unique reward. Also, if you are Ebonheart, the Undaunted folks made my day. There's plenty of nice little gems that deserve to be uncovered.
Yes exploring and group play doesn't get along well at all.  Nothing that code can do to change that, you would just need to know someone else who feels the same way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 06, 2014, 10:24:59 AM
I kind of feel that the monthly fee won't affect me because I should be done with the exploration and the "solo" part of it in about a month. As of now, I don't see myself investing any time in the group end game, and PvP is still a big question mark. I just hope the quality of the zones will stay as high as the ones I have explored so far.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 06, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
I don't know if a month will be enough time.  Which reminds me of another thing I like.  Once you cap out and finish your faction's zone you go do the other faction's zones from start to finish on the same character for optional vetern levels.  So I don't have to make two alts to see their content, my main will.

Of course if you want more than one character to be at level fifty plus ten vetern levels that is a tremendous amount of content you now have to redo.  If you're the type of person who doesn't like doing the same content twice make certain the class you are using now is the one you want to keep.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on April 06, 2014, 01:47:46 PM
Gonna post my impressions here as well. I picked this up on a friend's insistence; haven't played any of the betas and did no real research beforehand. Overall I'm satisfied with my purchase with some caveats... if I had to summarize my take in 5 words, it'd be the question "What if Bethesda did TSW?". edit: Though the combat reminds me of AOC, if anything.

I agree with Miasma on most good/bad points. Really, the strongest point of the game is the content... all of it. The zones are freaking huge and full of hidden stuff to explore -- and not GW2 checklist exploring either, though there's some of that via achievements. The main questline feels like I am playing a single-player RPG, and so far I'm enjoying that part as much (or more than) TSW and SWTOR. Some of the main characters are great (seriously, Razum-Dar for president), and their VAs are also pretty good. The quests are quite varied and aren't just focused on typical mmo collect x / kill y stuff (this is in contrast with TSW, which had some strong characters and story, but its quests except for the rare investigations were basically all collect x / kill y). Treasure chest hunting is fun. Dungeons are decent (I wouldn't say as polished as WOW or as complex as TSW, but definitely on par with RIFT and SWTOR). PVP is said to be good, though I'll wait and see.

There are a lot of ugly things, too. Bugs (especially quest bugs that forced me to delete and remake my character), monetization (HOW much do horses cost? Oh, so you're saying I can just buy one in the cash shop of my $60 game that I already pay a sub for? Yeah, screw you too.) and dear god the UI... if it wasn't for mods, I would've broken several keyboards in frustration by now.

(useless addendum: I'm not much of an ES fan at all, even though I played Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim; of these, Skyrim is the only one that I'd still consider playing, and it's pretty far down my list of favorite RPGs. That said, I'll probably spend more time playing this game than Skyrim.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ghambit on April 06, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
Moar tears dammit!   :tantrum:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: squirrel on April 06, 2014, 08:25:47 PM
I'm playing this as well with SA folks and have to say I'm really enjoying it, far more than I thought I would. For some reason unlike Rift or GW2 I'm just moseying around questing and gathering and exploring and not feeling any need to level. It does kind of feel like a SP TESs game in a lot of ways. I didn't play beta at all and only picked it up for the Reported DAOC style PvP which I haven't even tried yet. I keep logging in meaning to go PvP and then it's like "oh yeah but those crypts over there I just found and what is on that island and oh look flowers!"

It helps that the combat clicks for me - I like the limited skill layout and there's a nice meaty feel to combat at least for the character I have so far.

I expected to be filled with jaded MMO purchaser regret but I'm not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 07, 2014, 12:38:27 AM
Quick pros and cons for me so far:

+ Beautiful graphics and awesome performances. The world is really beautiful (at maxed settings).
+ Incredible amount of content (so far). Voices are a nice plus.
+ Explorator heaven. Secrets and achievements are a joy.
+ Character progression and customization. Spending points and cherrypicking skills is fun.
+ Crafting is somewhat really cool.

- Combat is terribly sub-par for 2014.
- RvR sounds nice in theory but still feel just chaotic and just zerg-based. Not sure if everyone being able to "stealth" helps or hurts.
- Inventory management is PURE HELL.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 07, 2014, 03:32:20 AM
To be fair the SA MMO-HMO folks will literally play anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mithas on April 07, 2014, 06:33:50 AM
This is not turning out to be the train wreck I thought it would be. Are expectations lowered, or is this actually a decent game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 07, 2014, 06:40:37 AM
If anything, I would say it's blowing other MMORPGs away content wise. But all I know is about the first 20 levels. Can't say after that. And content only matters if you are not bored to death by the gameplay.

EDIT: That's not true. It blows The Secret World away on quantity of content, but not on quality.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 07, 2014, 06:49:46 AM
This is not turning out to be the train wreck I thought it would be. Are expectations lowered, or is this actually a decent game?

It was never going to be a gigantic train wreck in the first month. The people who put up with it are playing it and posting their opinions. The people who didn't aren't playing it at all. I didn't expect anyone who made the commitment to buy the game to bash their own purchase immediately.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 06:56:54 AM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on April 07, 2014, 07:10:47 AM
Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.


That's asking a lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on April 07, 2014, 07:35:06 AM
Quote
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.

Isn't that what you do in an Elder Scrolls game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on April 07, 2014, 08:07:38 AM
Isn't that what you do in every MMO ever?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 07, 2014, 08:13:59 AM
Hoarding and collecting in this game are features, and they sinergize with crafting. Sadly one important tool is doing a terrible job at supporting it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 07, 2014, 08:44:05 AM
Quote
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.

Isn't that what you do in an Elder Scrolls game?

Yep, and that's why I think a lot of people are treating it like a single player Elder Scrolls game.  By the way, in my last post I meant quick SLOTS not starts.  My brain is like mush.  At the moment, I don't see a real need to group.  If a bunch of solo players wander into the same dungeon or are doing the same quest and everyone hits the same boss, you all get the credit, the quest loot and the update.  Why bother looking for a group at all?  I'm pretty sure it's not what they intended but they've made it easier to follow each other. kill the big baddie and then all go their separate ways to explore.  This is what I see everyone doing.  It makes more sense than a group.  I can take my time, read the books, unlock chests, find the skyshard, not worry about people who want to power level or have previously explored an area and I can still complete group quests.  In fact, I think this is the only way to play outside of PvP, which I haven't experienced yet.  I can understand people who play for a bit, quit and come back for big expansions now and then.  It's probably what I'll do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 07, 2014, 09:29:44 AM
Aaaand more content is coming. Craglorn is the first adventure zone announced today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwZsIUn_g6o), keeping up with the new-ish tradition of not releasing all the content so you can keep some to impress people a few days aftr launch. Anyway, end game stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 07, 2014, 10:28:18 AM
I did see that.  The Adventure stuff is instanced, too.  I have to wonder if it's still full of chests, books and that sort of thing which leaves the same sort of issues with groups,  PUGs in particular.  They'll have skyshards and I also wonder if you get one each time you do the instance or if it's a one time only deal like the rest. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on April 07, 2014, 11:09:54 AM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Is there some other way to find cooking recipes?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 01:17:54 PM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Is there some other way to find cooking recipes?

I don't know. But if you are into cooking then you probably want to open everything. But then you can't complain about inventory space.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on April 07, 2014, 01:21:44 PM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Is there some other way to find cooking recipes?

I've gotten 3 racial motifs from doing that, so it's very much worth your while to open everything you come across.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 07, 2014, 02:10:14 PM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Is there some other way to find cooking recipes?

I don't know. But if you are into cooking then you probably want to open everything. But then you can't complain about inventory space.

Don't be absurd. They can't complain about a system that requires a shitload of inventory juggling without the game providing the inventory to support it? What exactly *is* fair game to complain about then?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 07, 2014, 02:42:28 PM
I have to agree.  The inventory space and the radial menu are my two biggest gripes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 04:38:47 PM
The only way you have an issue with inventory is if you constantly try to open every single fucking thing in the world, and then horde all the crafting mats. Here's a clue: stop opening up everything you see just because.



Is there some other way to find cooking recipes?

I don't know. But if you are into cooking then you probably want to open everything. But then you can't complain about inventory space.

Don't be absurd. They can't complain about a system that requires a shitload of inventory juggling without the game providing the inventory to support it? What exactly *is* fair game to complain about then?

Hey, I pick up 5 million fucking shitty crafting materials in an hour! Voluntarily! WHAAA I WANT MORE SPACE. Give me a fucking break. If you want to support multiple crafting endeavors, you're gonna have to take the 5 minutes and port back to town and hit up a bank. With 2k gold investment you have 80 fucking slots to deal with. Not including a horse you can train for more. That's on top of 60 slots in your bank.

Even then, you can spend a few minutes selling junk to vendors every once in a while.

What do you expect them to do in these types of games? Give you infinite bank and inventory space? Just be happy they didn't implement a shitty weight system.

I have to agree.  The inventory space and the radial menu are my two biggest gripes.

The radial menu is dog shit. I think there is an addon that lets you hotkey each spot. Duno if it actually works, I can't be assed to do it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on April 07, 2014, 04:51:05 PM
Aaaand more content is coming. Craglorn is the first adventure zone announced today (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwZsIUn_g6o), keeping up with the new-ish tradition of not releasing all the content so you can keep some to impress people a few days aftr launch. Anyway, end game stuff.

Sweet jesus that combat looks boring


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 05:17:06 PM
All MMO combat is boring to watch especially if studios who don't know how to play their own game attempt to do it and make a "cool" video.

I find the combat average to decent. TERA is the best MMO combat for a reference point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 07, 2014, 06:16:16 PM

What do you expect them to do in these types of games? Give you infinite bank and inventory space? Just be happy they didn't implement a shitty weight system.


All I could think of when I read this post:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbU4Cb4A4-o


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 07:11:39 PM
It's a legitimate question. Do you want it GW2 style? Do you want in Diablo style? Do you want it WOW style? Do you want endless lists of gear that you can hold in your inventory? Inventory limits is a thing in games whether you like it or not. How would you have designed it differently?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 07, 2014, 07:53:35 PM
They actually increased the already huge number of items from the elder scrolls games but then stuck on an even more restrictive inventory system than WoW has.  It worked in games like skyrim because you could buy a house in every city which contained dozens of dressers/safes/trunks that were all bottomless and never ran out of space.

If it were possible to make a bank guild like in WoW with its five hundred slots I would be fine.  All they are forcing me to do here is create seven other characters to hold shit for me instead.  I have to mark myself offline when I cycle through the alts so that I don't spam everyone with Miasma has logged on/off messages.

I have one mule with all the bound stuff like treasure maps, trinket rewards, pets etc.
I have one mule with fifty items worth of researchable traits.
I have one mule with just provisioning stuff.
I have one mule with both alchemy and enchanting, almost maxed I will probably have to seperate them.
I have one mule with past tier ore/cloth/leather/wood.

I am only level 30.

Every time I go to town I desconstruct everything I can so my bank has a dozen types of trait gems, a dozen types of racial motif rocks, a dozen types of the blue/green/purple mats that are used to increase item rarity, eight slots per tier of mats for the zone I'm in for raw/refined ore/wood/cloth/leather - there are nine tiers overall so I send old tiers to the mule.  I don't even harvest ore or wood anymore, there is no point since deconstruction gives the refined stuff.

So at least sixty of my bank slots are used for things it just doesn't make sense to clear out since I'm constantly getting them.  Then I need to keep at least ten or so researchable items for when my queue pops.

This is not "five minutes at the bank".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 07, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
So you're a hoarder. Ok.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 07, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
inventory limitations have actually expanded to become a pretty ubiquitous gripe about the game. i haven't seen a place that wasn't complaining about it and I didn't expect this place to be the outlier in that there was a disagreement


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on April 08, 2014, 12:40:41 AM
Well, I'll agree with the others who are saying the inventory limitations are crap. I end up having to go back to a merchant to sell stuff every hour or so and endure the cumbersome bank interface just as much; I don't remember the last time I had to do this in any other MMO. In GW2 I could 100% multiple zones without inventory problems; ditto SWTOR (planets) and WOW (zones and multiple dungeon runs).

I'm not a "hoarder" any more than I am in other games; if anything, I am much less of one. I don't open random crates/urns/etc -- I did it in the tutorial + first city, then learned to stop doing it right quick when it filled my inventory with 0-value crap for provisioning. I DO open bookshelves and dressers, as dressers can contain recipes, and give the race-specific 'crafting bits' as well as lockpicks. My only craft skill is alchemy, so I gather about 7-8 different kinds of flowers and shrooms as well as the distillation base, ignoring every other kind of harvesting node (which is definitely not something I'd do in GW2, WOW or SWTOR). Most of the crap filling up my inventory actually consists of 4 different potions of every type (I regularly have to toss stamina and most health potions) as well as numerous 30-minute food/drink items... but there's also a lot of enchanting sigil things, useless white weapons/armor, and a ton of random junk I get as a byproduct to harvesting. Yeah, getting a worm or crawdad while picking a flower is nice, but ultimately useless to me; it now takes up an extra space in my inventory, yay! Oh, and there are ~20 individual CE treasure maps sitting in my bank because making their container bankable would be hard.

Originally I considered dabbling in some other crafts (being a caster, this would be clothier and enchanting), but the sheer amount of materials those things would add to my already-full bank made me skip that. Enchanter would need a ton of slots for runes and rarity increasers and whatever else. Clothier just looks like a nightmare of intermediate materials from breaking things down.

edit: also, in other games I'd typically carry several full sets of secondary gear as well as a large variety of consumables and random 'fun' items. Can't do that here -- whenever I do a vendor/bank run, I reduce my inventory to 12 items, which is the bare minimum of soul gem, charged soul gem, lockpick, mana potions (usually 3 different kinds because there's one for every level), health potions (2), stamina potion (1), food items (2) and the regional treasure map. Then do a dungeon run, some quests and exploring and bam, my 70 slots are full again!

Ideally this game should have an inventory system similar to GW2, only with the bag sizes being static and unlocked via the vendors (like they do it already, only with larger increments than 10). The 'send materials to bank' button (as well as having a separate collection for materials) itself would improve the experience by roughly 279.483%.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 08, 2014, 01:26:31 AM
So you're a hoarder. Ok.

Christ on crutches, seriously?

- The game has a megamillion items, and they are literally everywhere.
- You can open containers everywhere, there's literally like a million containers every 3 feet.
- Containers give you materials for crafting, runes for enchanting, recipes, lockpicks.
- If you don't open everything you are gimping yourself because what you can't or don't plan to use can be sold, traded, or most importantly given to friends who are working on their crafting.
- On top of that, you will loot stuff from every enemy. Lots of stuff. Which in most cases should be kept for "researching traits", something that can be done one at a time every 6-12 hours, cluttering your storage space even more.

So you can just play it cool and only keep stuff for your class (in a game where you can so easily multiclass?) and disregard everything else, but it's easy to feel that you are wasting resources by not picking up everything. So not only opening everything is a feature and it is fun, and gives you stuff you will probably want later and will kick yourself for not storing, but the system encourages you to do so by literally flooding you with items. As expected from any Elder Scrolls game. This is a good thing.  

EXCEPT

Except, you don't even get to know the tier of the crap you pick up, so it's not like you can tell "oh ok this is tier 2 crafting materials, so I can dump away everything that is tier 1 and make some room". You have to keep everything, at least until your brain figures out what you really need and don't need.
Except, as someone else noted, you don't have the usual Elder Scrolls house where you dump all your stuff.
Except, your inventory is 60-80 slots, and your bank is another 60-80 slots that are shared among all your chars. Which are OK numbers for any other MMORPG, not in TESO given its peculiarities when it comes to items.
Except, even if you are in a friends & family guild where you work together to raise craft skills you don't have a Guild Bank unless you can gather 10 members (unique accounts). So no shared space to easily trade resources unless you have more friends. Sucks to be us.
Except, in a huge area like Stonefall (you'll be there from level 5 to 14) there is only one bank, and to teleport there and back costs a decent amount of money.
Except, you will often run out of inventory space in the middle of a dungeon. It's very easy to go from having 10 free inventory slots to be full and not have enough space to loot that rare drop while you are questing and farming with friends since drops are so frequent *even if you don't open shit*.

So in short, you will teleport back to bank constantly, almost as often as in Diablo, but the process is not as quick and painless, and it's definitely not fun.
Sure, you can have so much fun with the game that eventually you don't care, but try to minimize this issue is ridiculous. They should have given easier access to much larger storage functions, or they could have made separate storage allowances for mats, or they could have been more clear about tiers for provisions and plants or even runes, or they could have put more Bank NPCs around, or they could allowed any group of two people to be able to have a fucking guild bank, or they could have allowed for the ability to enqueue the research of traits on weapons and armours without having to save them while you are researching something else, or they could have allowed some inventory buffer/overflow for tight situations while you are in dungeon. The way it is now, inventory and storage management are NOT fun and are a chore, they hit you terribly soon and the game pretty much demands you to make mule chars as early as level 10, unless you make a point to leave a shitton of loot and crafting materials behind, and that's something you just don't do when you play with a small guild of friends because that's how you help each other grow.

I understand you are loving the game. But to defend their claustrophobic decisions on storage and trading limitations just because they don't affect *your* particular playstyle is silly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 08, 2014, 04:21:48 AM
One note to save money and time porting is that it is free to port from one wayshrine to any other.  One trick to save both money and time is that you can pull up your guild roster, right click and travel to anyone online.  This puts you at... the closest wayshrine to them (unless they are in a dungeon).  So even if they aren't in a city with a bank it still puts you at a wayshrine and then you can travel for free.

Be careful not to try and port twice right after another, the cost goes way up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 06:21:29 AM
make a point to leave a shitton of loot and crafting materials behind, and that's something you just don't do when you play with a small guild of friends because that's how you help each other grow.

I understand you are loving the game. But to defend their claustrophobic decisions on storage and trading limitations just because they don't affect *your* particular playstyle is silly.

Here's what I hearing for the people whining about inventory:

1) I want to keep everything just in case. I can't. QQ
2) I HAVE to open everything because what if I don't get that level 10 recipe of Bearass Pie?
3) This game lets me open everything, gather everything, so naturally I have to have it all. I can't carry it all. QQ.
4) I have to visit a vendor once an hour or every 2 hours. QQ. If only I could port anywhere anytime in case I had to do #1, #2, #3.

Here's a hint for you. If you have a problem with your inventory, stop hoarding and opening everything. You aren't gimping your character if you don't open every barrel or crate. If you don't get some shitty level 12 recipe, you aren't gimping your character. You can destroy items when you're not at a shop.

If you can't control yourself and not open everything everywhere, well deal with it then. If you do want to everything, everywhere, then you have to deal with inventory issues. If you are going to be a vacuum cleaner, then you have to deal with the consequences.

This game has a wayshrine in every major questing area. Use them for a few minutes and drop off your garbage. If you have a friend that crafts and needs ore or whatever, you can mail them shit right from your inventory anywhere in the game.  Seriously, are you guys so retarded that you can't deal with regular inventory issues? Are you OCD addled that you can't bear not collecting something or throwing away garbage? Are you seriously trying to level up every single profession? Maybe you should turn off autoloot.

It seems like the only solution to your woes are:
1) Ask TESO to give everyone 1000 inventory slots.
2) Ask TESO not to allow everyone to gather anything.
3) Ask TESO to stop giving you shit from mobs.
4) Ask TESO to not give everyone access to any profession.

I mean seriously, the game actually has limitations and you have to make a simple choice of picking up garbage or keeping other things. God forbid you have to toss that 10 gold ectoplasm to make room for some shitty level 16 recipe that is 15 stamina better than your level 12 recipe.

This game has many flaws, but inventory management is not one of them. If you engage in crafting that is your choice, but inventory issues arise from it if you try to do too many at the same time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 08, 2014, 06:31:59 AM
I hope the devs think like you Draegan. I'll win my bet so much faster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on April 08, 2014, 06:33:10 AM
I think the largest problem is the arbitrary nature of inventory in modern games.  I can hold a breastplate or a carrot in an inventory slot.  I'd much rather deal with the weight limits and be able to drag around a pack mule with saddlebags.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 08, 2014, 06:38:31 AM
The behavior that is leading everyone to complain about inventory will not be solved by more inventory slots.  There are MILLIONS of things to loot.  People who loot everything will fill any sized space.  That, in turn, will cause massive server issues for the game.  

Give a hoot. Don't loot.

All that aside, I think it would help if items gave more detail about themselves so that adventurers could more easily prioritize what to keep.  I also believe that the game is brand new so players will eventually sort this all out in some economic way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on April 08, 2014, 06:40:25 AM
GW2 style banking would solve it easy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 08, 2014, 06:42:56 AM
It seems like the only solution to your woes are:
1) Ask TESO to give everyone 1000 inventory slots.
2) Ask TESO not to allow everyone to gather anything.
3) Ask TESO to stop giving you shit from mobs.
4) Ask TESO to not give everyone access to any profession.

I suggested solutions in my post and they are not idiotic like the ones you suggest. Exaggerating reqasonable requests doesn't make your post funnier.

Quote from: Falconeer
They should have given easier access to much larger storage functions, or they could have made separate storage allowances for mats
They could have been more clear about tiers for provisions and plants or even runes
They could have put more Bank NPCs around, or they could allowed any group of two people to be able to have a fucking guild bank
They could have allowed for the ability to enqueue the research of traits on weapons and armours without having to save them while you are researching something else
They could have allowed some inventory buffer/overflow for tight situations while you are in dungeon.

Let me add another one: they could have allowed people to deconstruct weapons without getting to a crafting station.

I wouldn't like the game if they erased the need for inventory/storage management. It just needs to be eased down a bit since TESO is special when it comes to items, stuff and mats. So yes, the point is not to just make bags largers. It is to give better tools to organize, store and manage all the stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 08, 2014, 06:47:28 AM
Here's what I hearing for the people whining about inventory:

You're imagining a lot of "QQ" that only exists in your imagination.  It was a one off bullet point that every one else agrees with.  It is only a moderate hassle and yet you decided to go all white knight martyrdom on it.  They picked an arbtrary number of inventory slots inline with other mmos but have radically more items.

Quote
1) I want to keep everything just in case. I can't. QQ
2) I HAVE to open everything because what if I don't get that level 10 recipe of Bearass Pie?
3) This game lets me open everything, gather everything, so naturally I have to have it all. I can't carry it all. QQ.
4) I have to visit a vendor once an hour or every 2 hours. QQ. If only I could port anywhere anytime in case I had to do #1, #2, #3.

1) I destroy or vendor every single non crafting item I can.
2) Why are you so hung up on the opening containers thing?  99% of containers are just provisioning mats or lockpicks.  You could take containers out of the game and still not have enough slots.
3) Again with your container fixation, how is this even a different point from 2?  I open containers because they rarely contain blue recipies, treasure maps and racial motif books.
4) No, the amount of stuff I vendor is limited to duplicate recipies, bait and trash items (which aren't even marked properly as trash allowing me to use that tab to sell all).  Everything else has to be brought to four different crafting stations, deconscructed, banked, researched and then log on/off four alts to clear the bank.

You obviously don't craft so don't have inventory problems, that's fine.  Just stop raging about an issue that doesn't even affect you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 06:48:02 AM
I hope the devs think like you Draegan. I'll win my bet so much faster.

I still haven't heard a solution from anyone. Do you want more inventory space, if so how much? Should everyone have a secondary personal bank? Do you want less items to drop? Do you want them to limit the amount of gathering/crafting you can do? Do you want crafting materials only to come from nodes and/or NPCs?

Currently ESO allows you to craft anything, gather everything without having to make a hard choice.
Currently ESO gives you more inventory space and bank space by default than any other game, however it's balanced by giving players more stuff to do things with.
Currently ESO provides crafting materials from NPCs, Nodes, Crates/Barrels/Bags/Backpacks etc. No other game really provides this many materials to players, from this many sources from that many sources. Not only that, but TESO allows you to deconstruct useless greens into crafting materials.

So if this was your precious, WOW, you would have less inventory slots, less materials, less crafting and gathering options and the only option to gain materials is from running in circles farming nodes.

The only other game that handles it better in some degree is GW2 because it gives you the option to store every single crafting mat up to a stack of 100? 200? (I can't remember) and I still had inventory issues in that game too. The difference is that TESO has more mats, gives them to you more often that GW2, and allows you to do everything at the same time (assuming  you invest skill points into crafting).

Honestly, the only problem here is TESO gives you too much shit and you don't want to have to deal with choices.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 08, 2014, 07:00:23 AM
I still haven't heard a solution from anyone.

You keep writing in this thread using 'retarded' as an insult left and right, but can you read? Suggested solutions are up there, posted twice since you clearly like to skim.

Also, hoping you can read this: no one has a problem with inventory management issues in general. That has always been part of every game, and that is fine. They are just extreme here, and they show up too early. Got it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 07:04:23 AM
Quote from: Falconeer
They should have given easier access to much larger storage functions, or they could have made separate storage allowances for mats
They could have been more clear about tiers for provisions and plants or even runes
They could have put more Bank NPCs around, or they could allowed any group of two people to be able to have a fucking guild bank
They could have allowed for the ability to enqueue the research of traits on weapons and armours without having to save them while you are researching something else
They could have allowed some inventory buffer/overflow for tight situations while you are in dungeon.

Let me add another one: they could have allowed people to deconstruct weapons without getting to a crafting station.

I wouldn't like the game if they erased the need for inventory/storage management. It just needs to be eased down a bit since TESO is special when it comes to items, stuff and mats. So yes, the point is not to just make bags largers. It is to give better tools to organize, store and manage all the stuff.

Easier access/Bank NPC: Once an hour you can port to any wayshrine for a low fee. Each zone has a lot of wayshrines that you can easily get to do it for free. You can port anywhere in the game you want regardless of this option (outside Cyrodil). Port to an area in the game that has a bank close to a wayshrine. Outside of accessing your bank from anywhere in the game, that's pretty damn easy access. Plus there are multiple bank NPCs per zone, at least in the ones I've been in, I can't claim that's the same for every zone. But since wayshrine traveling is instant and not limited to zone, what difference does it make?

Tiered Mats: I can agree with that. ESO has some of the worst tooltips in the industry. They suck. Here, I googled this for you:

Enchanting Mats - Source (http://tamrielfoundry.com/crafting/enchanting/)
Quote
Rank 1: Allows the use of Jora, Porade, Jode, and Notade Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of levels 1-15.
Rank 2: Allows the use of Jera, Jejora, Ode, and Tade Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of levels 11-25.
Rank 3: Allows the use of Odra, Pojora, Jayde, and Edode Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of levels 21-35.
Rank 4: Allows the use of Edora, Jaera, Pojode, and Rekude Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of levels 30-45.
Rank 5: Allows the use of Pora, Denara, Hade, and Idode Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of levels 40-50.
Rank 6: Allows the use of Rera and Pode Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of level VR1.
Rank 7: Allows the use of Derado and Kedeko Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of level VR3.
Rank 8: Allows the use of Recura and Rede Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of level VR6.
Rank 9: Allows the use of Cura and Kude Potency Runestones to make Glyphs of level VR8.

Queueing Research: I don't have an issue with this. But how big is your backlog and how many different crafts are you researching? You might have to drop down the scope of your enterprise. How many traits would you want to queue at the same time? In the same vein, should I be able to autofeed my horse every day? I really don't see this as a big deal honestly.

Inventory Buffer: That would be helpful. I agree with this.
Item deconstruction anywhere? I have no problem with that.
Guild Banks - Well since you can can be in up to 5 guilds at the same time, I imagine they want to limit possible exploitation for having that many guild banks. Is the threshold 10? Maybe it should be 5.

--

Ultimately you have a lot of good points for how to make QOL better in the game, but outside of being able to deposit into the bank from anywhere in the game into a space that is unlimited any of these fixes won't change the fact that you're gathering and saving materials for every single craft in the game at the same time. If that is causing you to fill up too fast, you need to stop bro or deal with having to go to the bank or use up mats more often.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 07:06:51 AM
Here's what I hearing for the people whining about inventory:

You're imagining a lot of "QQ" that only exists in your imagination.  It was a one off bullet point that every one else agrees with.  It is only a moderate hassle and yet you decided to go all white knight martyrdom on it.  They picked an arbtrary number of inventory slots inline with other mmos but have radically more items.

Quote
1) I want to keep everything just in case. I can't. QQ
2) I HAVE to open everything because what if I don't get that level 10 recipe of Bearass Pie?
3) This game lets me open everything, gather everything, so naturally I have to have it all. I can't carry it all. QQ.
4) I have to visit a vendor once an hour or every 2 hours. QQ. If only I could port anywhere anytime in case I had to do #1, #2, #3.

1) I destroy or vendor every single non crafting item I can.
2) Why are you so hung up on the opening containers thing?  99% of containers are just provisioning mats or lockpicks.  You could take containers out of the game and still not have enough slots.
3) Again with your container fixation, how is this even a different point from 2?  I open containers because they rarely contain blue recipies, treasure maps and racial motif books.
4) No, the amount of stuff I vendor is limited to duplicate recipies, bait and trash items (which aren't even marked properly as trash allowing me to use that tab to sell all).  Everything else has to be brought to four different crafting stations, deconscructed, banked, researched and then log on/off four alts to clear the bank.

You obviously don't craft so don't have inventory problems, that's fine.  Just stop raging about an issue that doesn't even affect you.

Ah ok, we got to the point where if I disagree with you enough I'm whiteknighting or raging.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on April 08, 2014, 07:23:51 AM
Here's what I hearing for the people whining about inventory:

1) I want to keep everything just in case. I can't. QQ
2) I HAVE to open everything because what if I don't get that level 10 recipe of Bearass Pie?
3) This game lets me open everything, gather everything, so naturally I have to have it all. I can't carry it all. QQ.
4) I have to visit a vendor once an hour or every 2 hours. QQ. If only I could port anywhere anytime in case I had to do #1, #2, #3.

Thank god you don't work in the game industry, since you have absolutely zero clue about how players actually play games, player personalities, and how game systems that others have mentioned here influence their decisions.  You are clueless if you can't see see how the game is 100% encouraging you to hoard and yet expect people to stop complaining when they are unable to.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 08, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
A collection of information about the almost completely unexplained fishing system. (http://doctorapocalypse.kinja.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-fishing-in-elder-scrolls-online-1546458958)  It seems utterly pointless at the moment (and broken).

Here is a large image if you are interested in provisioning. (http://i.imgur.com/q733c0N.png)

You can /playdead in pvp.  It is an emote where you lie down in a corpse position.  Since most people still use the default of not seeing enemy hp bars a surprising number of people will just run right by you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on April 08, 2014, 08:26:33 AM
Honestly, Draegan, it's not the substance of your post I think people have a problem with, it's the vitriol and condescension you drape it in.  Is it possible to disagree with a position without turning it into a rerolled thread?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 08, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
I don't loot everything.  In fact, I almost never loot barrels and sacks and those sorts of things because I'm not into cooking yet.  I do, however, deconstruct everything I can and mess with alchemy and enchanting.  Stuff builds up quickly.  For the most part, more bank space would help a lot.  Being able to easily use alts would be good, too.  Another thing that annoys me is the price to feed my horse is 250 gold.  It's a waste of coin.  They have the hunger set up at 24 hours real time instead of game time.  Every time I log in I have to feed my horse.  Setting up like that doesn't make any sense at all.  My horse lives in game time!

And fishing is a big waste of time.  And yet, I still do it.  I can't help myself.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 08:46:56 AM
Here's what I hearing for the people whining about inventory:

1) I want to keep everything just in case. I can't. QQ
2) I HAVE to open everything because what if I don't get that level 10 recipe of Bearass Pie?
3) This game lets me open everything, gather everything, so naturally I have to have it all. I can't carry it all. QQ.
4) I have to visit a vendor once an hour or every 2 hours. QQ. If only I could port anywhere anytime in case I had to do #1, #2, #3.

Thank god you don't work in the game industry, since you have absolutely zero clue about how players actually play games, player personalities, and how game systems that others have mentioned here influence their decisions.  You are clueless if you can't see see how the game is 100% encouraging you to hoard and yet expect people to stop complaining when they are unable to.

I guess I just see it from a different point of view. I see a game that gives you a shit load of stuff and leaves it up to you how to deal with it. It's somewhat refreshing from different game design theories that drastically limits what you can do and thus limits the choices you are force to make.

For example, in WOW you are limited to the choices of professions and gathering so you are never forced to deal with all this extra stuff. It's designed to be streamlined and easier to deal with. If you are a miner and a blacksmith, your world never really comes in contact with any other profession except maybe cloth that you loot from NPCs.

ESO just says "here is everything, go play". Most people have been trained to collect and store everything they find "just in case" so they snag everything they find and try to put it somewhere for a rainy day when they decide to hunker down and do some crafting. I was doing this for some time to some degree and found out that I really didn't need any of this stuff and got rid of it. If I want to eventually craft, I'll just go back and do it another time. The only thing I've kept were uncommon or rarer materials. Everything that was common I gave away or sold to a vendor.

You say the game promotes hoarding. This is only true if you're a player that wants to do everything at once. And if this is the case, I agree, the game is frustrating in that aspect. But from the way I look at it, it's not designed for you to do everything at once and a bi-product of that is forcing you to make choices of what to loot, how often to loot crates and backpacks or even take sidetrips to a bank or a crafting station.

Honestly, Draegan, it's not the substance of your post I think people have a problem with, it's the vitriol and condescension you drape it in.  Is it possible to disagree with a position without turning it into a rerolled thread?

Honestly, no matter which tact you take here whether it's being a dick or being serious, if you go against the greater opinion in a thread you're still harassed or condescended against. Go take a look at the Marvel Movie thread and how 4-7 people ganged up on jgurensen (or however you spell his name) who presented a well written argument without any vitriol and the groupthink around him just shit on him and called him an idiot.

It's F13, people have the big boy/girl pants on here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 08, 2014, 08:50:24 AM
Well maybe if you had been wearing some big fluffy Depends instead of the big boy pants, then you wouldn't be acting so butthurt right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 08:58:17 AM
Well maybe if you had been wearing some big fluffy Depends instead of the big boy pants, then you wouldn't be acting so butthurt right now.

You're cute.  I like you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 08, 2014, 10:03:27 AM
If anything the inventory system in this game is too lenient.  With the ability to port anywhere at any time practically why do i need 60 bank spaces?  15 is more than sufficent.  It is also unrealistic that I have 60 bag spaces.  I could make do with 10.  Also they should limit how much gold you can carry.  Realistically could someone even lift 1000 coins?

They have a vision people.   A. Vision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 08, 2014, 10:19:45 AM
Draegan, when exactly did you become such a dickhead? Because I don't remember you being quite this bad.

Also, grown men circa 30-40 saying "put on big boy pants" is fucking embarrassing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 08, 2014, 10:21:58 AM
Draegan, when exactly did you become such a dickhead? Because I don't remember you being quite this bad.

Also, grown men circa 30-40 saying "put on big boy pants" is fucking embarrassing.

1. I don't think he's being all that bad. 

2. Since we're adults arguing about computer games, that takes embarrassment out of the equation. 

I remember when coins had weight in EQ.  This couldn't possibly be that bad.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 08, 2014, 10:26:09 AM
It's more taken in totality of his generally being pissy over the course of the past year or whatever.

I dunno, dudes. I'm not going to go all smarm or anything but getting so het up about vidya games that we're calling each other retards and shit lost its luster awhile ago. It's boring. But I don't post that much anymore because of that so what do I know?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 08, 2014, 10:34:05 AM
What do you expect them to do in these types of games? Give you infinite bank and inventory space? Just be happy they didn't implement a shitty weight system.

Copy GW2, done. It's a solved problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 08, 2014, 10:36:31 AM
Copy GW2, done. It's a solved problem.

The crafting bank system for GW2 was pretty awesome as was the shared bank spaces.  One of the bright spots of that game for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on April 08, 2014, 10:41:31 AM
I guess I just see it from a different point of view. I see a game that gives you a shit load of stuff and leaves it up to you how to deal with it. It's somewhat refreshing from different game design theories that drastically limits what you can do and thus limits the choices you are force to make.

For example, in WOW you are limited to the choices of professions and gathering so you are never forced to deal with all this extra stuff. It's designed to be streamlined and easier to deal with. If you are a miner and a blacksmith, your world never really comes in contact with any other profession except maybe cloth that you loot from NPCs.

ESO just says "here is everything, go play". Most people have been trained to collect and store everything they find "just in case" so they snag everything they find and try to put it somewhere for a rainy day when they decide to hunker down and do some crafting. I was doing this for some time to some degree and found out that I really didn't need any of this stuff and got rid of it. If I want to eventually craft, I'll just go back and do it another time. The only thing I've kept were uncommon or rarer materials. Everything that was common I gave away or sold to a vendor.

You say the game promotes hoarding. This is only true if you're a player that wants to do everything at once. And if this is the case, I agree, the game is frustrating in that aspect. But from the way I look at it, it's not designed for you to do everything at once and a bi-product of that is forcing you to make choices of what to loot, how often to loot crates and backpacks or even take sidetrips to a bank or a crafting station.

You just proved that everyone you were arguing against was right.  Sure, you determined that all the stuff was useless to you and are perfectly fine throwing it away even though you admit that you may need to collect it later to explore that part of the game.  Most people are not going to be that forgiving that the game essentially forced them to get rid of something that they may actually have a use for in the future, and when they do have a use for it in the future it's wasting their time by having to re-collect it all.  

The game doesn't promote hoarding because people want to do everything at once, it promotes hoarding because it gives people ideas of what they can do in the future and people don't want to waste that futuristic opportunity cost.  The game is clearly going "here's a bunch of mats that are totally usable to you if you ever decide you want to try this other feature out" and most players are going to subconciously pick up on that and save it in case they do want to try their hand at that later.  Then the user gets constrained by inventory space and wants to keep his options open for later without wasting time but the game is also fighting against that.  

If the game makes people think that something they pick up might be useful to them in the future, they will keep it.  If the game makes people think that hoarding something now will save them time in the future, people will hoard it, and thus you have to design your systems and loot around that.  It's human nature and it's a pretty good example of how a lot of game designers are totally divorced from the (most of the time subcioncious) truths of player behavior.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 08, 2014, 10:46:00 AM
Copy GW2, done. It's a solved problem.

The crafting bank system for GW2 was pretty awesome as was the shared bank spaces.  One of the bright spots of that game for me.

Right-click->send all mats to bank + dedicated material slots are the things from GW 1/2 I wish every single game would steal. It's just infinitely better than the way any of the other ones do it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 08, 2014, 10:51:48 AM
Draegen's right about one thing, if you go against the grain here in a thread you get the full monty of ridiculousness, and high-fiving amongst the people ganging up on you. And usually making very few good counterpoints.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on April 08, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
It depends on how you present your unpopular opinions. I've disagreed with the masses quite often and never had anyone jump down my throat. Maybe I've got thicker skin, or I don't come off as much of a dick as some people. Dropping insults while dissenting doesn't do much to help your case, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on April 08, 2014, 11:23:44 AM
It depends on how you present your unpopular opinions. I've disagreed with the masses quite often and never had anyone jump down my throat. Maybe I've got thicker skin, or I don't come off as much of a dick as some people. Dropping insults while dissenting doesn't do much to help your case, though.

As many times as Draegan and I have disagreed in the past, he's always been civil and provided thoughtful counterpoints.   I can't say that for many others. 

What's the point of insulting each other here anyway?  Aren't we enough of a community to be past that petty shit?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 08, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Draegen's right about one thing, if you go against the grain here in a thread you get the full monty of ridiculousness, and high-fiving amongst the people ganging up on you. And usually making very few good counterpoints.
This thread doesn't have a grain, it was overwhelmingly negative for the first 80 pages and even the people who are now playing and enjoying it are being honest about the game's problems.

Oh you're talking about f13 in general, I think.  Yes that happens, not just here but everywhere.  You just have to accept the one in ten times you get ganged up on since you're probably the one doing the ganging up elsewhere the other nine times.

The latest season of Archer sucks compares to all the past awesome seasons.  The cocaine plot is weak and provides nothing but bad plotlines.  They can't use their best most developed villains because there is no overlap.  It had really great female characters and this season has turned them all to crap.  Mother archer has no real role anymore.  Cheryl's subplot is unfunny and going nowhere.  Pam is now a one trick 'look at me eat cocaine' pony.  Worst of all who in their right mind takes an awesome action oriented character like Lana and makes her pregnant so that she just sits around doing nothing?  You're in the one medium where you don't have to worry about writing up contrived plots to account for an actor's pregnancy and then you decide to just do it anyways and tie your hands behind your back?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 08, 2014, 11:43:48 AM
This thread doesn't have a grain, it was overwhelmingly negative for the first 80 pages and even the people who are now playing and enjoying it are being honest about the game's problems.

The grain here is mostly negative early, followed by the expected release honeymoon, and I expect things to turn after a month or two when Zenimax does something overwhelmingly, but predictably stupid. That's pretty much the bad MMO standard timeline.

It may not, they might have fixed a lot of the problems with the game, but I'm betting otherwise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on April 08, 2014, 12:12:35 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85916/just_scrolling.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 08, 2014, 12:13:14 PM
What do you expect them to do in these types of games? Give you infinite bank and inventory space? Just be happy they didn't implement a shitty weight system.

Copy GW2, done. It's a solved problem.

I believe you but that isn't going to happen any time soon.  So the solution now is to just stop gathering so enthusiastically.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
Draegan, when exactly did you become such a dickhead? Because I don't remember you being quite this bad.

Also, grown men circa 30-40 saying "put on big boy pants" is fucking embarrassing.

I have a one year old daughter. I operate on 4 hours of sleep. I had a reprieve about about a month ago, but now she's teething. I'm allowed to be a cranky old man on the internet, I certainly can't be with my wife. I would be dead.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 08, 2014, 12:16:56 PM
This thread doesn't have a grain, it was overwhelmingly negative for the first 80 pages and even the people who are now playing and enjoying it are being honest about the game's problems.

The grain here is mostly negative early, followed by the expected release honeymoon, and I expect things to turn after a month or two when Zenimax does something overwhelmingly, but predictably stupid. That's pretty much the bad MMO standard timeline.

It may not, they might have fixed a lot of the problems with the game, but I'm betting otherwise.

I think everyone was caught by surprise that there was an actual honeymoon launch for this game. I personally wrote this game off as shit as much as 2 months ago. I was pretty surprised to find an enjoyable game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on April 08, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
What do you expect them to do in these types of games? Give you infinite bank and inventory space? Just be happy they didn't implement a shitty weight system.

Copy GW2, done. It's a solved problem.

I believe you but that isn't going to happen any time soon.  So the solution now is to just stop gathering so enthusiastically.

I suppose it's a good thing there aren't any problems with movement or combat then, since similar solutions to those hypothetical problems would be to not go anywhere or fight anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 08, 2014, 12:57:21 PM
I don't really find any one thing to be game breaking so far.  I can even deal with the god awful radial menu.  Just.  One of the things I liked about the single player games like this were stashes.  I would stick stuff in odd barrels or chests and go back later for it.  I don't know if they will ever have housing, though, which would be awesome, and solve some of the inventory/bank issues people have.  The only official thing I ever saw about it was the statement, "Elder Scrolls Online will not launch with player housing", which is ambiguous, at best.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 08, 2014, 01:39:15 PM
Also not launching with a thieves guild.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on April 08, 2014, 02:17:21 PM
Draegan, when exactly did you become such a dickhead? Because I don't remember you being quite this bad.

Also, grown men circa 30-40 saying "put on big boy pants" is fucking embarrassing.

I have a one year old daughter. I operate on 4 hours of sleep. I had a reprieve about about a month ago, but now she's teething. I'm allowed to be a cranky old man on the internet, I certainly can't be with my wife. I would be dead.



See, now all your recent posts make more sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on April 08, 2014, 02:35:10 PM
I find it interesting that you can feed your horse to increase 'capacity', though that currently appears to be meaningless.

Where are my satchel bags and wagon!!?!

P.S. maybe it is the honeymoon period, but I find myself enjoying this thing. Probably because it twigs my story/explorer aspects. This SinglePlayerGameWithOthersRunningAbout is actually enjoyable. Especially once you add a damned SPAM filter.

I hereby withdraw my initial pessimism.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 08, 2014, 02:54:22 PM
Each time you feed your horse for capacity you get one extra inventory slot.

You can skip the opening movies by going to the Documents\Elder Scrolls Online\live\UserSettings.txt file and changing SkipPregameVideos to 1.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 08, 2014, 04:44:03 PM
I have a one year old daughter. I operate on 4 hours of sleep. I had a reprieve about about a month ago, but now she's teething. I'm allowed to be a cranky old man on the internet, I certainly can't be with my wife. I would be dead.
You should try garlic for toothache.  :wink:

I find it interesting that you can feed your horse to increase 'capacity', though that currently appears to be meaningless.

Where are my satchel bags and wagon!!?!
Coming right after the horse armour DLC.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on April 09, 2014, 06:56:02 AM
You should try garlic for toothache.  :wink:

That's even more funny if you are familiar with rerolled less refined areas.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 09, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
It's almost like I did it on purpose.  :oh_i_see:

(RIP in peace Wizardhawk)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 10, 2014, 04:42:55 AM
I'm actually having fun on this game but I will probably quit as soonas my wife lets me because the inventory management is so atrocious and the lack of a global AH is equally annoying.

What i would give for this game to steal GW2's AH and inventory system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 10, 2014, 08:46:10 AM
I tried to level provisioning but ran out of mats around level 16, despite having a provisoining mule with 50 some odd ingredients.  In any other game I could have bought some off the auction house for whatever price gouging amount the people who saved all their tangerines demanded but instead I had to try and root around old dungeons and zones.  Found lots of garbage but very few of the actual mats I needed.

Since killing gray mobs gives no loot I'm also worried I won't be able to do something like farm bears for meat.  I know they at least sometimes still drop leather but I don't know about meat.

The first dungeon I went to had a huge amount of stuff to loot in barrels, crates etc but then in the next dungeon all that stuff was already empty.  I really hope it was just bad luck and not some sort of anti loot code that spawns more empty crates if you've looted too many recently.

At any rate, the quests and zones and exploring are all still awesome.  But yeah, add a couple gw2 inventory/ah systems and this game would be amazing.

Fake edit: Oh and I fooled around on the guild auction house, that is one of the most worthless interfaces I have ever seen.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on April 10, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
I understand the good intentions behind the AH thing, but it's like saying "smartphones have killed public conversation, so we're going to outlaw everything but landlines." Rather than address the problem directly, they're just making everyone's lives aggravatingly inconvenient.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/04/10/elder-scrolls-online-recommends-third-party-auction-forum-for-tr/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 10, 2014, 02:03:48 PM
Yeah, that "instead of an auction house" solution is not for me.  I'll just ignore everything except myself, I guess.  :)  One really, REALLY fun thing I did today was go to the Fungal Grove with my level 14 Dragonknight and use stealth then use ardent chains to pull one or two mobs to me and get all the way to the final boss and his two compadres.  I couldn't kill them, but I did away with nearly everything else.  Loads of good loot, too.  There's quite a few chests in there.  It took a while but it was a good laugh.  The only quests I have left in my journal for the Stonefall area is that one and a buggy one.  There's probably more but I've almost out-leveled that area.  I think.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on April 10, 2014, 02:55:23 PM
I'm curious - the one quest where I thought I'd finally achieved a design structure I was happy with was in Stonefalls. It was granted by an item purchased from a wilderness vendor. Could anyone tell me if it was left in?

EDIT: Never mind, I found a reference to it in a wiki. I can't tell if it still works the same, but it's there. (It's "The Fetish.")


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 11, 2014, 02:39:47 PM
I understand the good intentions behind the AH thing,

There are no good intentions behind it. Revisiting something I said pages ago, every day in this game I become more and more convinced the whole "we want to make trading social and awesome again" spiel is asscovering for technical ineptitude. Think about it: the search functions don't work in my 500 person trade guild now. You can't organize the searches by name. I swear that doing the same search brings up different results. And now they're saying, "Yeah, we said we wanted trading to be intimate and small but you can go ahead to this website if you want".

Then think about their insistence on a global server and what GW2 (run by a demonstrably more technically proficient team) went through with their single global AH.

They just couldn't code the fucker is what happened.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on April 11, 2014, 07:55:09 PM
Is there an F13 guild going in ESO?  I joined a trading guild just to have the ability to buy and sell something without having to spam chat (this game needs an AH, I don't care what anyone says) but I'd like to join a real guild that does stuff like dungeons and pvp.  I'm in the Ebonheart Pact.  Also, installing a few of mods mentioned earlier (action bar, inventory etc) has things MUCH more playable.  I highly recommend using them.

Edit: I know someone (Signe?) posted a link earlier of all the Skyshard locations but this might be a better site to use. http://teso.mmorpg-life.com/database/skyshard-locations-map/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 11, 2014, 08:36:55 PM
Oh, that's a better one, I think.  You can also get a mod that puts them on your in-game map and maybe the mini-map.  I don't remember what it's named, though.  If you guys start a guild, I'll join it but I'll probably mostly just use you for your bank.  And the odd group if someone, anyone, plays the same time as I do... which rarely happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 12, 2014, 05:09:23 AM
A million things can and could be said about the content in TESO, but here's just a very tiny thing that just happened to me.

I am riding my horse on a road, trying to get to a wayshrine I can see in the distance. A couple of NPCs at the side of the ride don't catch my eye, but while I am speeding past them I can overhear a bit of their conversation. It only lasts a couple of seconds, as my horse passes them, but curious about it I decide to stop and hear whatver sound bit has been recorded for them. Turns out these two traveling women are quarreling because one of them was in charge of the fire and apparently she is not good at it, and now their campfire is out and they are in trouble. You can't really talk to them, so this is not an actual quest. But what you can do is click on the campfire, lit it for them, get thanked while they finally sit down and stop quarrelling, and get a decent chunk of XP for the inconvenience. The whole thing had no signs, no blinking yellow marks, nothing. It's just a little roadside picnic you happen to help with.

I am still playing the game 99% solo (I only group for PvP), and it works perfectly that way. I'm only level 18 after 46 hours of /played and I haven't felt the grind or any need to speed it up yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 12, 2014, 06:56:30 AM
There's alot of little things in the game that you can miss out if you play it like a usual mmo (or maybe other games have them too but I've always managed to skip them). For example alot of the npcs have more dialogue to say once you've completed the quest and you've gotten the reward but I'm sure 90+% of people never hear it since there's no reward (usually) to be gained from listening to it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 12, 2014, 07:22:18 AM
I'm even slower than you, Drew, I've only just turned 15.  Some of the NPC conversations I've heard have been really funny.  Some suggest things to you.  I'm trying to be careful not to miss much.  I've only just ventured into Deshaan from Stonefalls but still have two outstanding quests to finish there.  The combat isn't so bad sometimes.  Some of the bosses present challenges and require a fair bit of strategy if you're running solo.  I have one level 15 quest that I'll either have to wait or get a group (the goblin chief).  I can't seem to pull them one at a time.  Actually, I've gone places and killed mobs that are probably meant for groups, but using a little strategy and extended chains (which I'll eventually swap out for the other one maybe) has been very good to me.  I really like the game and I'll probably stick around for a couple of months and see where it goes.  I only allow myself one sub at a time so this will be it for a while unless the NextBigThing happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on April 12, 2014, 09:28:01 PM
Poor megaserver took another megashit. Down for maintenance now, but lost all items from my bank, got all my ingame pre-order mails again, so decided to logout and see how it was in an hour or so. Get back on,' hey my bank is back!', but 40 of its expansion slots are gone, and the items that were in those slots are now in my character's inventory, well, what little room he had available, so 'lost' 30ish things. Maybe that'll get fixed too?

I like the game when it works still though. But yeah. Ramble bamble.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Njal on April 13, 2014, 02:35:20 AM
Is there a way to hide your helm? A lot of them are just fugly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 13, 2014, 02:40:01 AM
Is there a way to hide your helm? A lot of them are just fugly.

It's an option under the gameplay tab (press esc)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Njal on April 13, 2014, 11:10:53 AM
Thanks, missed it cuz it looked greyed out and I'm blind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on April 13, 2014, 03:43:06 PM
A million things can and could be said about the content in TESO, but here's just a very tiny thing that just happened to me.

I am riding my horse on a road, trying to get to a wayshrine I can see in the distance. A couple of NPCs at the side of the ride don't catch my eye, but while I am speeding past them I can overhear a bit of their conversation. It only lasts a couple of seconds, as my horse passes them, but curious about it I decide to stop and hear whatver sound bit has been recorded for them. Turns out these two traveling women are quarreling because one of them was in charge of the fire and apparently she is not good at it, and now their campfire is out and they are in trouble. You can't really talk to them, so this is not an actual quest. But what you can do is click on the campfire, lit it for them, get thanked while they finally sit down and stop quarrelling, and get a decent chunk of XP for the inconvenience. The whole thing had no signs, no blinking yellow marks, nothing. It's just a little roadside picnic you happen to help with.

I am still playing the game 99% solo (I only group for PvP), and it works perfectly that way. I'm only level 18 after 46 hours of /played and I haven't felt the grind or any need to speed it up yet.

Not to belittle your excitement but this sort of thing is in every MMO.  Just reading it made me think of GW2.   I think you are just enamored by the feels that first week MMO's give us.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 13, 2014, 06:08:11 PM
It is, but it's a question of density that drives the "feel". I remember stumbling on some fun side quests in GW2, and in WoW, ones that were definitely in the "above and beyond" realm of content outside of the minimum needed to grind levels without needing to grind XP.

But whereas you don't really expect it in an MMO (which makes it a nice surprise), you kinda do in an ES game, thus without it the game would feel even less like Skryim.

Doesn't probably solve any issue anyone has with the game. But it does sound like it sucks slightly less than I assumed from my few hours in :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on April 13, 2014, 08:17:51 PM
Shit I like:

It runs well in OS X, the development doesn't seem like an afterthought or a shitty cider port. I don't have to boot into 'doze to play. (I'm looking at you, STO, even though you get points for effort.)

The explorer in me is delighted at all the shit out there.

It feels sort of organic. It's not forced at all yet.

Shit I don't like:

The combat is sub par and the animations seem to desync and the responsiveness is muddy.

That prison sequence sucks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 14, 2014, 06:42:06 AM
A million things can and could be said about the content in TESO, but here's just a very tiny thing that just happened to me.

I am riding my horse on a road, trying to get to a wayshrine I can see in the distance. A couple of NPCs at the side of the ride don't catch my eye, but while I am speeding past them I can overhear a bit of their conversation. It only lasts a couple of seconds, as my horse passes them, but curious about it I decide to stop and hear whatver sound bit has been recorded for them. Turns out these two traveling women are quarreling because one of them was in charge of the fire and apparently she is not good at it, and now their campfire is out and they are in trouble. You can't really talk to them, so this is not an actual quest. But what you can do is click on the campfire, lit it for them, get thanked while they finally sit down and stop quarrelling, and get a decent chunk of XP for the inconvenience. The whole thing had no signs, no blinking yellow marks, nothing. It's just a little roadside picnic you happen to help with.

I am still playing the game 99% solo (I only group for PvP), and it works perfectly that way. I'm only level 18 after 46 hours of /played and I haven't felt the grind or any need to speed it up yet.

I found a merchant selling stuff in the middle of no where. He sold boxes that gave blue items. I then had the option of robbing him and got 1000g and some xp. Was fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 14, 2014, 06:43:04 AM
I think the lack of an AH isn't horrible in this game in the same vein an AH was terrible in Diablo3.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 16, 2014, 11:44:24 AM
The amount of optional dialogue and color they recorded for this game is staggering.  For every quest npc in a town that you need to interact with there are twice as many npcs who have no role whatsoever but that you can still talk to.  When you finish a quest if the npcs you worked with are still alive you can go back to them after the turn in and they will have post-quest thoughts.  It's hard to believe they went through this much effort knowing that nine out of ten people would never speak to these extra npcs.

As an example I finished a quest last night to liberate a mine full of people that the Imperials were using as forced labor, after the turn-in the mine area phases from full of aggro mobs to freed miners.  There was one orc or who had nothing to do with the quest standing with a bunch of tied up imperial prisoners.  There is no reason to talk to him but I did and find out that he's trying to stop the other miners from lynching the prisoners and get into a dialogue about what he thinks should be done with them.

I also took my first step into the last zone before the veteran ranks and was again impressed by how amazing it looked graphically.

In bad news, server stability and patching problems seem to be getting mildly worse since launch instead of better.

Edit: To be clear all of this dialogue is in actual voice acting, not text.  The only time text is used is if you are actually reading a piece of paper/diary/book.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 16, 2014, 01:00:59 PM
I wanted to post the same thing Miasma, but didn't want to deal with the usual amount of "oh but it's in every game since 1979 already and you are just honeymooning". I agree, it is staggering and I love it.

Also worth mentioning the cool idea of veteran levels, an elegant design solution to have people explore all the content regardless of their faction.
For those who don't know how it works: when you reach the level cap (50) you have ten more levels that you can achieve, called Veteran Levels, that we could call 50.1, 50.2, ..., up to the actual cap of 50.10. The Veteran levels don't add any more points to your stats pool, but allow to use some equipment that you couldn't access otherwise. How do you achieve those additional levels, since you've run out of content? Simply: you go through all the zones that you've skipped because didn't belong to your faction in a phased version of them where the quests, NPCs and stories and are what you would have experienced before if you were from that faction but the mobs are all 50+. I am sure some other game did this (did they?), but regardless it's a very clever way to keep providing players with fresh content without forcing them to roll a new toon. This also helping to stifle the usual problem of people getting to 50 in a week and then complaining they have nothing left to do. The amount of content is really mindblowing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 16, 2014, 01:25:27 PM
Yes I'm looking forward to not having to roll alts I'll never play again just to see the other side's quests.  On the other hand if you actually do want an alt and want that alt to have the veteran levels it is going to be a huge amount of effort since you have to run all three factions' areas.

I'm too far along to change mains now but I sort of wish I had rolled a templar instead of a dragon knight.  I like the dragon knight but it seems as though templar is just as good but also has the only healing class abilities.  My concern is somewhat mitigated since anyone can heal with the resto staff line.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on April 16, 2014, 04:52:48 PM
I've had several quests and funky locations revealed because of 'talk to everyone'. It is very much like the Single player Elder Scrolls games in that you miss half the game if you just go to the next Quest Marker.

Biggest minus: bots camping boss spawns in public dungeons. I keep dreaming of "GM's" wandering around and banning these twits. Just Because.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 16, 2014, 05:23:44 PM
I haven't seen any bots in delves but that's because I think I am ahead of them on the level curve, I have heard it is a problem in the low level delves.  I really don't know what the gold spam scum are doing here since it would be hard for them to make much money.  There is no univeral auction house, everything sold to npcs goes for a pittance, if you do want to sell something you can't easily automate it as you need to join a merchant's guild etc.

That said bethesda not having anti spam tools on day one is fucking laughable.  I shouldn't have to spend five minutes waiting for a customer support ticket screen to load to report spammers in zone chat or mail.  Right click "spam" done is how it should work..

Also: Abnur Tharn is the best npc we love to hate.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 17, 2014, 03:14:14 AM
In the course of the past 3 weeks I have lost the entire content of my bank and all additional bank spaces 3 times.  I can't quit because my wife is still playing but I am secretly hoping it happens to her, because I will know it will drive her into apoplexy and I can quit this stupid game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 17, 2014, 03:31:05 AM
I was going to say that I haven't heard of any issue like that from anybody I know, but here's a Reddit post about it. (http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/237f0c/today_is_the_two_week_anniversary_of_me_loosing/) Sucks.


EDIT: Let me add an article about "The Strange Economy of Werevolves and Vampires in Elder Scrolls Online". (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/16/the-strange-economy-of-werewolves-and-vampires-in-elder-scrolls-online)

Quote
Vampirism and Lycanthropy have long been a part of Elder Scrolls lore, but their appearance in ZeniMax Online's MMORPG has had the perhaps unintended effect of shaking players out of the predictable routine of shuttling from one quest to the next and from one zone to the next. It makes the world feel more alive. You might experience this feeling while hunting down the NPC werewolves and vampires during the game's full moons and new moons respectively if you can't convince someone to bite you.

Fresh out of the starter zones, players who haven't even reached level 10 huddle like beggars among the crafter's stalls and banks and flood the zone chat with pleas to take pity on them and bite them for free so they can use it their entire playthrough. The massive sums of cash come from comparative veterans with 25 or more levels under their belts, who try to toss away everything they've earned so far just for the pleasure of becoming the latest shaggy dog or bloodsucker. In a game where there are no server-wide auction houses, it yields the fastest transfers of money that I've seen during my whole playthrough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 17, 2014, 04:38:18 AM
I was going to say that I haven't heard of any issue like that from anybody I know, but here's a Reddit post about it. (http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/237f0c/today_is_the_two_week_anniversary_of_me_loosing/) Sucks.



I think it may be a by-product of the fact that I have 7 mules (it always happens as I am logging in and logging out with different characters which I end up doing a lot) because:

1.  They do not provide anywhere near enough inventory space to store crafting mats.
2.  They do not provide us with a functional market to trade these mats so I could sell excess or buy mats if I was interested in developing a crafting skill down the line, requiring me to regrind a shit-ton of mats if I do not hoard them.

I am certain I am not alone in this, the strain of having 100,000 people log in and log out constantly to switch items is probably hammering there login servers (where the bug exists).  My wife is a programmer an she is pretty sure that it is a combination of poor coding and a system that incentivizes folks to put a direct strain on the already poor coding.  The economy/crafting/inventory system in this game is just an amazing clusterfuck in all ways and is really detracting from my enjoyment of the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 17, 2014, 06:48:04 AM
My understanding is that while they do have backups of character data they have no facility to simply rollback inventory to that backup, they have to go through logs and replace things one at a time.  Please tell me they at least replaced your stuff right?  While I'm loving the actual game part of ESO if I ever lost all the stuff I have carefully sorted into my bank and mules I would probably rage quit.

The effects of people like you and me having seven mules is absolutely going to be more expensive than if they just gave us 500 inventory slots directly but the variable we don't have is how many people are willing to do that instead of just selling everything.  Pulling a number directly out of my ass I would have to imagine only one in five people at most are willing to bother with mules.

A general rule that has popped up to fix client bugs, get out of falling through the world during login etc is to delete this file - Documents\Elder Scrolls Online\live\SavedVariables\ZO_Ingame.lua.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 17, 2014, 06:55:16 AM
I have 7 mules too. One for each craft. And no, it is not my fault cause I never ever do this in MMOs. It is their fucking fault.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 17, 2014, 07:06:16 AM
Sounds more like it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 17, 2014, 08:01:58 AM
I don't have any mules.  Does that mean I'm safe?  Probably not.  I have, however, been suffering from buggy quest tracking.  I've turned off all my addons and I still get it.  I turn off the game quest tracker and it goes away.  Now I just use the addon and turn off the game tracker.   Movement has become somewhat jerky since the last update, too.  It doesn't affect my fps, which are awesome, just movement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2014, 11:17:07 AM
I really haven't followed this game closely. I've jumped on it for some stupid stuff I've heard but from people actually playing the release would you consider this worth $60 plus the sub fee right now? Or wait a bit til they've ironed everything out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 17, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
If you like exploring and quests it's worth the price.  If you have other stuff to play right now you may as well wait until they address some of the bad designs that detract from the game though.  Could also wait to see if it goes free to play although I'm less sure that will happen within a year as I once was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 17, 2014, 11:31:22 AM
 Please tell me they at least replaced your stuff right?  While I'm loving the actual game part of ESO if I ever lost all the stuff I have carefully sorted into my bank and mules I would probably rage quit.



I have not had a response to any of my tickets on this issue.  None.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 17, 2014, 11:49:21 AM
This title is not worthy of the series in any way, and its about as "safe" a MMO game as you can make. I have already played this game, for the past 20 years now. I have been burned out by this formula for quite a while now. If your not, good. If you have never played a MMO before, you will find this to be the best game ever, I guess.

More mobs standing around to die in fields.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on April 17, 2014, 11:57:49 AM
 Please tell me they at least replaced your stuff right?  While I'm loving the actual game part of ESO if I ever lost all the stuff I have carefully sorted into my bank and mules I would probably rage quit.



I have not had a response to any of my tickets on this issue.  None.

I want to say I read something somewhere about them not doing any individual support on it until the root cause is fixed, since it just happens again, but I am not sure where I saw that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2014, 03:03:46 PM
 Please tell me they at least replaced your stuff right?  While I'm loving the actual game part of ESO if I ever lost all the stuff I have carefully sorted into my bank and mules I would probably rage quit.



I have not had a response to any of my tickets on this issue.  None.

I want to say I read something somewhere about them not doing any individual support on it until the root cause is fixed, since it just happens again, but I am not sure where I saw that.

I would think at least a reply saying so is mandatory considering you are a paying customer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 17, 2014, 03:50:37 PM
I really haven't followed this game closely. I've jumped on it for some stupid stuff I've heard but from people actually playing the release would you consider this worth $60 plus the sub fee right now? Or wait a bit til they've ironed everything out.

I think it's p good right now but I'm playing god awfully casually. It's not without its warts, obviously, but I think it's pretty darned good.

Of note, I think this is the game with the widest gulf between what critics are saying (IT SUCKS) and what the players are saying (ABOVE AVERAGE TO VERY GOOD) that we've seen in a really long time. There are reviews just savaging it, like in PC Gamer, and it just bears no relation to the way people seem to actually be playing it. And I'm not in a fanboy bubble. The worst I'm hearing from people is that it's merely decent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Logain on April 17, 2014, 08:32:00 PM
Why isn't there a an ESO subforum? I mean, seriously, we've got GW2 and D3 but no ESO?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on April 17, 2014, 09:01:04 PM
Because initially the thread started as "This will suck" and so there was no need for a subforum, because who cares about gameplay details for a game that sucks?  Discussion is still about whether it sucks or not, with very few questions asking about mods to use, tactics, skill selection/training, guilds formed, and so on.  But anyway, it's up to Schild and the other admins and moderators.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 18, 2014, 12:59:11 AM
Why isn't there a an ESO subforum? I mean, seriously, we've got GW2 and D3 but no ESO?
Because everyone bar a lone holdout will have quit within six months.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 18, 2014, 01:17:34 AM
Why isn't there a an ESO subforum? I mean, seriously, we've got GW2 and D3 but no ESO?
Because everyone bar a lone holdout will have quit within six months.

Will have quit in *two* months. And there isn't enough people playing this right now to begin with, as opposed to GW2 and D3 at launch, or even The Secret World.

Is it worth 60%? I paid 35$ on G2A.com (it's 44$ now) and it was definitely worth that price. Not sure I would have bought it at 60$ but I might have based on what I know now.

Is it worth the monthly fee? Hard to say since we haven't exhausted the free month yet. Right now the novelty of the exploration and above average questing and storytelling (for an MMO) is keeping some of us hooked, but as noted multiple times the gameplay is far far far away from being original or new so I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up wearing me out pretty soon. So far I only spent 35$ and surprisingly enough it's a lot of bang for that buck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on April 18, 2014, 02:29:52 AM
Ouch. Stay clear of this quest, I guess.

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-mmo-blues.html

(I normally read this guy for his EVE blogging,he's on the current CSM.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Comstar on April 18, 2014, 04:15:41 AM
There's a dupe bug, involving stacking multiple items in the guild bank. Guild banks shut down today, but Reddit tells me the bug has been known and reported since Beta. 100K gold is being sold for $15 buy spammers, so it seems to be wide spread and common knowledge. If you didn't cheat, good luck at having fun in PvP vs the people who did who have gold plated items now. Next patch will fix it, but I doubt their logs show enough of anything or they have enough GM's to ban the people who abused it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 18, 2014, 04:31:40 AM
I do enjoy the PvE gameplay but no honest person can claim that this game is not a buggy mess.

I've been so vexed by the repeated wipe of my bank that I haven't even gotten to how horrendous the class balance in the game is, I went to AvA yesterday and one of the first groups I encountered were 5-7 sorcerers who had an ability that allowed them to blink a large distance and afterwards be immune to crowd control.  This ability had no cooldown. 

Considering that they haven't even gotten around to fixing the utterly game breaking bugs and the dupe exploit it's going to be 6 months until they even look at stuff like broken abilities.  How did this game get released in this state?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 18, 2014, 05:12:51 AM
the ESO dupe crisis was frontpage news today on reddit and, as i scrolled through it, google news.

Quote
How did this game get released in this state?

it is a combination of elder scrolls plus mmo. it was destined to be the bug singularity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 18, 2014, 06:51:41 AM
I think it's kind of a throwback, keep some of the tricks of single player TES games in place. Instead of the console command for free gold (player.additem 0000000f "1000000") they hid it as an easter egg!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 18, 2014, 07:03:47 AM
Doesn't really seem popular enough to have its own forum, even the thread only gets bumped a few times a day despite it just releasing.  Also they now love D3 instead of hating it so don't dare mock it.

Ouch. Stay clear of this quest, I guess.

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-mmo-blues.html

(I normally read this guy for his EVE blogging,he's on the current CSM.)
Quests like this are very frustrating but make up about 1/20 of the total.  It's very odd, for the most part they made them such that you won't get frustrated by other people.  Loot is shared so long as you get a hit in, most spawns if items you need everyone can loot.  But then you hit a quest where once someone loots the object it disappears and you have to find another, those are chaos since there are so many people running through the zone right now.  It's like they just didn't think about what the initial leveling population would be and thought "oh if we put down like 15 spawn locations it will be fine".  It is not fine.

In a similar vein - the game has world bosses, you find their camp and you need a few people to kill them.  You don't really need to group since so many people are streaming through the zone you can just wait a few minutes and other people will start showing up and mill around until there are enough to kill the boss.  Well I have now seen two different world boss camps where instead of just spawning, a weak minion summons the boss through a channeled spell.  Remember how I said earlier that just landing a hit on mobs will give you credit?  This means that people are trained to immediately rush the mob before it dies when they see a bunch of other players.  You can have ten people standing off to the side waiting for this poor bastard to finish summoning the world boss, all /yelling not to touch the mob and without fail some guy comes along, panics and attacks the mob.  So the worldboss just can't get summoned and no one gets credit.  Even worse the second camp like this the guy summons the boss, then summons minions and if you kill the boss before the minions you also don't get credit!

Dupe bug, wow.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was reported in beta, there are a lot of bugs from beta.  There are critical quests which have been broken for over a week preventing people from advancing their main quest lines.  They are not very fast at fixing bugs.  When you deposit stuff in the bank items won't even stack, it's terrible, you wind up with ten slots of 12, 7, 34, 22 ingots of ore.  You also can't stack them within the guild bank, you have to withdraw, stack, re-deposit.  Maybe they'll fix that garbage at the same time, I would laugh if the dupe bug somehow took advantage of that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 18, 2014, 07:46:53 AM
the front page /games post: I don't know how much of this is hyperbole but if it is not, jeez

Quote
Some of you may already be aware, but a game breaking bug has hit ESO that allows characters to duplicate stacks of materials in their bank. It is so simple, in fact, that it is possible to do it by pure accident. I will not explain this exploit, but it is the first result of googling "ESO Item Dupe".
Players in full legendary gear, billions of gold (From duping mats and selling them to vendors over and over), and so much more. Money, items, etc is completely worthless.
People are completely panicking that Zenimax will have to drop a nuke, but nobody knows what they can do to fix the problem. The closest I have ever seen to this bad was GW2, but it was stopped way quicker and ArenaNet doesn't mess around and banned everyone involved.
Unfortunately this bug has been well known for over a week now (Actually, since launch!) and it's ramifications are so bad that there may be no way to really recover without something drastic. I believe simply banning people isn't enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on April 18, 2014, 07:50:17 AM
One of the comments on the reddit thread was that people screenshotted and reported this back in Beta  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on April 18, 2014, 07:57:28 AM
Of note, I think this is the game with the widest gulf between what critics are saying (IT SUCKS) and what the players are saying (ABOVE AVERAGE TO VERY GOOD) that we've seen in a really long time. There are reviews just savaging it, like in PC Gamer, and it just bears no relation to the way people seem to actually be playing it. And I'm not in a fanboy bubble. The worst I'm hearing from people is that it's merely decent.
There was a similar reviewer-gamer gap with Sim City, but it went the other way.

Also I'm kinda glad to hear about these awful bugs. I was getting close to buying this when I've got no time to really commit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 18, 2014, 07:57:43 AM
Yep, this is starting to look how we expected now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 18, 2014, 08:08:30 AM
Since there is no real AH, and therefore almost no real economy gold isn't actually that useful.  It's like their stupid/lazy decisions are reducing the impact of their incompetent/lazy testing.  A greater impact than gold would be people duplicating the high end crafting mats that turn whites->greens->blues->purples->gold.

Another rookie mmo mistake.  Run a query once a day to see if anyone has an impossible amount of gold.  If any bug report comes in with the word duplicate that's now your number one priority.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 18, 2014, 08:21:41 AM
True.  I can't see myself playing this after a couple of months unless they add an AH or equivalent and fix things like crappy inventory and buggy quests.  So far I haven't come across a quest that would stop the main quest line, but I've had quite a few that started out really fun and ended in frustration because it was broken.  If I get to a high level and find broken quests that stop my progress, that's probably a quit forever for me. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 18, 2014, 08:30:17 AM
A greater impact than gold would be people duplicating the high end crafting mats that turn whites->greens->blues->purples->gold.


This is EXACTLY what happened.  With many of these mats being sold to unsuspecting players.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 18, 2014, 08:54:49 AM
Allegedly, the disappearing inventory slots will be fixed when the servers come back online.  If you want to replace the items you lost, you have to contact support.  Amiable already told us how well that works.

There was even a video on the item dupe exploit.  So simple.  It's fixed but I enjoyed the music from the video.  Oh, evidently it's fixed because guild banks are now disabled.  Yay for clever fixes!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on April 18, 2014, 01:22:36 PM
From what I understand, it's not completely fixed, but we'll see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 19, 2014, 12:34:49 PM
Unhappy camper right now.

There is an idiotic bug that would be trivial for them to fix right now on the main quest line, it has been around for a while now.  All they would have to do is change a distance variable.

Because of this bug you can't finish the very last quest.  Because you can't finish the very last quest you can't move on to the veteran stuff in the other factions' zones.

I am standing here with a couple dozen other naked people playing a mario jumping platform plus praying game.  You have to 'shoot' a fire to light something basically.  It does not work, people have found out if you do an idiotic jump, than another jump and mash the button that it might work once in a while.  The second jump kills you, thus the nakedness, because there is gear damage in this game.

On top of that there is another bug where when you respawn you die right away again.

The servers have also been unstable the whole weekend so every tenth time you die things will not load and you have to f4 and restart.

All they would have to do to fix this is change whatever variable says "must be within 100 metres" to "must be within 200 metres".  The number of people cursing Zenimax's existance in this zone is substantial.  These are the people who are one notch below hardcore who will make or break your game.

As an extra special bonus, the next room on the main quest line that breaks all progress also has a bug for many people.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on April 19, 2014, 12:44:09 PM
Sorry to hear that, hope you can get that worked out.  Also, how is the leveling speed?  Grindy?  Too fast?  I'm a casual player and thought it was a bit grindy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 19, 2014, 01:33:09 PM
This is one of those games where I don't even know what level I am. I just don't even pay attention to it. You get skill points regardless of levels (through skyshards and completing quests) so you unlock new weapons and skills even without leveling up, and if you care about quests and you follow them you'll be overleveled for pretty much all of them anyway. So, I can't answer your question as "grind" is a subjective concept, but I'd say that getting to 50 is pretty easy and quick (people were 50 in 17 hours and my friend did it in a week) if doing it fast is your thing. If instead you want to just enjoy the ridiculous amount of quests and stories, you'll get there without even noticing. Seriously, the "episodic" nature of the quests reminds me of Dragon Age more than Elder Scrolls, or any MMORPG. I am playing short sessions of one or two hours, long enough to complete a quest line, and it feels very casually satisfying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 19, 2014, 02:32:47 PM
I managed to finish it.

If you play as an explorer and do the whole zone you are always at a good level.  If you just grind you will feel like you are under leveled.

It took me I guess three weeks to do 1-50 and while I played a lot a huge amount of that time was spent gawking, banking, exploring etc.  Like falc said it's really up to you.  If you play it to grind it will feel grindy, if you forget what level you are until your screen goes all bright and swirly when you ding it won't feel grindy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 19, 2014, 04:04:10 PM
All right, I managed to finish the main quest line(s).  All is forgiven.  I can't hold a few bugs against such a fantastic game.

Also, John Cleese's character is absolutely amazing and I hope he lives forever.  During the tutorial zone I though it was a one off short cameo appearance but he's actually there throughout the whole main story line(s).  A couple of orders of magnitude at the end.

Sorry for the parenthesis but it was needed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on April 20, 2014, 03:01:39 PM
So, allegedly a friend of a guy from another forums contacted customer service about getting banned for no apparent reason, and was told that their auto-ban system is bugged and that it banned a bunch of people that did not trip any of its warning flags. This is getting better and better :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on April 20, 2014, 07:39:21 PM
All they have to do now is copy SWTOR's auto-customer-service-reply-droid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Setanta on April 20, 2014, 07:51:09 PM
From one of the guys on bittah.com:
Quote
I submitted a ticket to report a quest bug that was stopping me processing in the game. Only to be banned, then i get an email apologising for the ban and getting unbanned. I reply thanks to the email as a curtesy only to be re banned

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 21, 2014, 06:12:14 AM
So what I'm getting from all this is the game is a must buy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 21, 2014, 06:29:28 AM
So what I'm getting from all this is the game is a must buy.

Game of the Year potential.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 21, 2014, 06:32:03 AM
Brilliant!  Any ticket sent to a CSR results in a ban.  They can do away with their CSR department with that system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 21, 2014, 06:55:52 AM
mmo's always have the most tumultuous honeymoon periods.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on April 21, 2014, 08:44:58 AM
This was less a honeymoon than a one night stand.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 21, 2014, 09:25:48 AM
John Cleese running around in the last zone making pithy comments is definitely very awesome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 21, 2014, 12:11:08 PM
The bugged quests, the customer service disaster and most importantly the duping fiasco are really, really bothering.

Then again, a vast majority of players, me included, didn't encounter any of these issues except for a few bugged quests out of several hundreds working ones and are just having an unsuspected very good experience. So while the issues are there and they are major, I doubt they are, or will be, having a role in determining this game's success or failure. Give it a few weeks and it'll all be forgotten. The game will then have to prove if there are reasons to keep playing after the free month or not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on April 21, 2014, 07:33:55 PM
I think it's just bad UI design.

Their "ban" button is right next to their "answer ticket" button.

That's all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 22, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
Probably the best and most comprehensive review I've seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3B26h12C4


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 22, 2014, 06:34:25 AM
I guess there is another dupe bug where if you alt+f4 during loading you get double in-game mail.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 22, 2014, 07:12:59 AM
That review pretty much pointed out that the game was terrible except for pvp.

Any game that fails that hard at grouping isn't long for the subscription model.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 22, 2014, 07:24:20 AM
I disagree with AngryJoe.

The game is cool for explorers and solo players but it stinks as an MMORPG. Not bad at all as a single player RPG although not even remotely on par with a real Elder Scrolls game. Most importantly so far the PvP is incredibly disappointing.

It looks GREAT, and it makes you believe it's going to be great. Instead, the poor combat makes it painful, not fun. The netcode is good enough to let literally hundreds of player roam the land in a realisitc looking manner but lots of skills (especially pulls) react poorly to the input from many players trying to do the same thing at once and the result often feels unresponsive and wonky. On top of it all, the terrible job the game does at giving players feedback about what's happening, how, why, from and to where, makes many of your PvP-raid deaths not fun at all once the novelty wears off. Let's not forget that everything you see here has been done before, and quite well although far from perfect, by Guild Wars 2. TESO was supposed to improve that formula, and it did in many ways, but it also took a few steps back in giving the players unsufficient tools to find some order in the chaos of siege warfare, and while I still like a lot the occasional engagements of 10 to 20 players per side, I find the zerg war absolutely not fun in this iteration.

And let's not talk about the apparently cool but actually stupid mechanic of everyone being able to hide. Since I mentioned how annoying the zerg can be, let me spend a few minutes telling you about those nice smaller groups engagement.... EXCEPT THE SMALL GROUP IS NOT A SMALL GROUP BUT INSTEAD A FULL CLOAKED KLINGON FLOTTILLA. Basically, wherever you see a player, there's ten to fifty times that amount hidden nearby. What's the fucking point?

As I said, it's great for videos, it really looks gorgeous, but it's not fun to play. Especially now that a few ridiculous AOE casters build are spreading and the game is evolving into roaming bands of magical supernovas of death.

I am not giving up on the PvP, but after the first few WOW! moments, I have to say that open world PvP in TESO needs work, especially in the UI/feedback department.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 22, 2014, 07:53:59 AM
So you're saying the game is even worse than Angry Joe thinks?  Considering it felt like he had to stretch to find anything nice to say as it was...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 22, 2014, 09:01:59 AM
I kind of almost agree with nearly everyone.  Mostly.  It's good and bad, depending on how you play.  PvP sucks, in my opinion.  At least so far.  I do like the fact that much of the armour and weapons are suitable for both PvE and PvP.  At least it feels that way.  I won't bother with PvP anymore until something happens to make it more fun.  PvE, as a solo player, is really fun for me.  I wish everyone else in the game would simply disappear sometimes though.  Of course, the tougher mobs in dungeons and stuff that would give me problems are relatively easy because others are fighting them too, all you have to do is help to update your quest or get the loot.  Other than buggy bits and a few other minor issues, they've made this game extremely easy to play solo.  I'm not all that high level yet, but the main story quest line seems to be very solo-able.  I've switched characters and I'm playing an armoured sorcerer with an axe and shield.  I'm not entirely sure that's the weapon set up I want to keep so I haven't taken any weapon skills yet.  So far, though, it's good fun.  Much more interesting than a dragon knight.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on April 22, 2014, 09:08:08 AM
I've gotten to level 25 with a dragon knight and I've enjoyed the ride so far. If you're looking for Skyrim with a shitton of people (which is what I think most of the reviewers are looking for) you're going to be woefully disappointed. If you're looking for an Elder Scrolls flavored shared world, populated by the occasional asshole that's not of the NPC variety, it's not a bad game at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 22, 2014, 09:54:33 AM
I'm getting fed up with some of the bugs. Spent most of the last week stuck on a quest that was part of the main quest line for the area (motes in the dark or something like that) since it was bugged and today it finally worked for me so I was able to proceed only to get stuck in another quest of the same quest line (moonlit path). You'd think they would atleast get the main quests working but so far the response time has been pretty dismal (well atleast I can use the overpowered shield bash for the foreseeable future since they won't be tuning anything soon judging by their record so far :uhrr: )


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on April 22, 2014, 10:03:28 AM
Really, the two things that make this game not crap are the exploration and the quests... when the quests work, that is. I pretty much encountered a broken quest once a day, and there aren't that many quests in the first place (~45 per map, and about 1/3 to 1/2 of those being simple fetch or return types). Some of the workarounds to un-break the quests are somewhere between :ye_gods: and  :why_so_serious: -- if there's anything that'll stay with me, it's standing in line for ~20 mins at motes and ship graveyard (seriously, people standing in line to do a quest!), doing THAT JUMP during the final assault, doing a soft-reset in the second room after THAT JUMP in the same quest by having everyone on that step log off and wait 5 minutes, and deleting my first character 4 hours in because I did some of the intro quests in the wrong order, preventing me from doing the main storyline on the first island.

That said: I finished the main storyline yesterday, and overall I think I got my money's worth. This isn't a game to pay a sub for... but I think everyone knows that by now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 22, 2014, 10:24:33 AM
There was an amusing and actually helpful bug (until they patched it Monday) where, for some reason, every female mob in this dungeon would drop the dungeon boss's loot.  If she was in a pack with a male npc it did not work, but any solo female mob or group of mobs that were all female had the boss' loot table.  The boss was male, and did not have loot.  It just seems like such a crazy bug I would have loved to find out how that happened.

The boss' item loot wasn't actually important but since every dungeon boss drops a level appropriate soul gem and five potions you were able to stock up for as long as could convince yourself that hunting down every female and ignoring men wasn't going to turn you into a misogynist.  I have a stack of 100 grand soul gems and each type of level 50 potion now...

They need to stop mentioning the new craglorn group oriented content they are working on until the actual game is more stable.  Also, as mentioned, questing and groups don't work so well together so basing the next content pack around exactly that is probably going to wind up being a terrible idea.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 22, 2014, 10:34:54 AM
If you're looking for Skyrim with a shitton of people (which is what I think most of the reviewers are looking for) you're going to be woefully disappointed.

Honestly, that's what they should have delivered or not bothered with the concept. The people aren't wrong to expect this to be an Elder Scrolls game when its name is plastered all over the box. This was my biggest concern about farming out the IP to shell studio that will impact the brand for the worse.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 22, 2014, 10:37:06 AM
There was an amusing and actually helpful bug (until they patched it Monday) where, for some reason, every female mob in this dungeon would drop the dungeon boss's loot.  If she was in a pack with a male npc it did not work, but any solo female mob or group of mobs that were all female had the boss' loot table.  The boss was male, and did not have loot. 
I...what? What?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on April 22, 2014, 11:15:34 AM
Bitches be gold diggers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 22, 2014, 12:52:34 PM
So you're saying the game is even worse than Angry Joe thinks?  Considering it felt like he had to stretch to find anything nice to say as it was...

I am saying that he didn't enjoy the single-player exploration aspects as much as I did. I would give the game a 6/10 score for PvP, just based on the effort. And I would give the game a 6/10 score for PvE, just because they managed to keep me hooked despite the not-so-interesting combat. At this point I am pretty sure I don't consider the game worth a monthly fee (and on this we agree) but since I said I consider it a pretty decent single-player RPG with a solid 8/10 score when it comes to exploration and lore/quests, it's only fair to play it for a month and then put it away.

I think it's slightly better than what Angry Joe says cause the boredom he talks about is what I experienced in the beta, but didn't experience in the final product due to a more streamlined questing experience. So it's a better game than he says, but it's a bad MMORPG.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 22, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
So has anyone started bitching about Veteran Rank yet?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on April 22, 2014, 01:25:44 PM
Well, after finishing up the main story (you need to hit level 50 for it), I started the main quest thing over in the second faction's area, noted the enemy scaling and xp gained from doing a quest compared to the size of the veteranxp bar, and haven't logged in since. Does that count?  :awesome_for_real:

e: though really, the veteran level grind isn't that egregious compared to what other games do at 'endgame', and at least you get to do interesting content instead of farming the same dungeon 54324325 times or whatever. It's just not very good at motivating me to keep playing...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on April 22, 2014, 02:01:22 PM
Each zone in veteran rank content equates to about one veteran rank, so yeah it's a good amount slower. Mobs hit harder and have more health which can be annoying and depending on where you allocated your skill points, you might need to change things up a bit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 22, 2014, 02:17:42 PM
I would like to tell you whether PvP is good or not but my faction on the battle server I chose took everything in the first three days and nobody's taken more than two farms from us since.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 22, 2014, 03:14:06 PM
So has anyone started bitching about Veteran Rank yet?
I don't like that the veteran areas are harder.  Breaks a basic video game rule that people are supposed to feel more powerful as they level up, not less.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on April 23, 2014, 04:15:50 AM
So has anyone started bitching about Veteran Rank yet?
I don't like that the veteran areas are harder.  Breaks a basic video game rule that people are supposed to feel more powerful as they level up, not less.

I'm in the opposite camp.  I am enjoying the veteran content more because it is actually a bit more challenging.  I can still solo/duo a lot of the group mobs with my sword/board DK (lol shield bash, spell absorb, shield charge and dark talons).

I only went into PvP once and had a reasonably fun time zerging around.  I was decently successful in my first outing ganking enemies running from their spawn.  But yeah, do not engae groups of 1 or 2 who seem to be circling around an area, there are guaranteed to be 10-15 people cloaked and waiting for you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 23, 2014, 06:20:57 AM
I think the general consensus so far is still something along the lines of "There's such a great game hidden in this and it kills me that you have to work so hard to find it"

as well as, I'm guessing, crap like dupe crisis issues and other megabugs are going to keep the developers' time monopolized and class and skill retooling won't happen in the timeframe it needs to happen in.

During the time that class imbalance and ridiculous skill cheese (and zerg) remains only tentatively prodded at, people are going to get way tired of the state of the game. They'll love the singleplayer main campaign, talk up Cleese, and then unsub.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 24, 2014, 12:26:43 AM
State of the Game Address (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/85974/state-of-the-game-address/p1)

A lot of "Sorry everyone, we are combatting the issues!"

 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 24, 2014, 05:57:20 AM
I unsubbed. And I like it! I don't think there's anything unfun about it. I'll revisit it in the future. It's just going out of town for Easter for four days broke that rhythm an MMO needs to keep me invested. Then I came back and there's this big work thing blowing up plus final exams plus some activities with the kid.

So there it is. This weird thing where I like the game a lot (in fact, I think I was one of the first ones coming out of beta going "no no, it's actually pretty good") but I'm just not going to play it right now.

Plus, it weirdly made me miss GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2014, 06:18:35 AM
State of the Game Address (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/85974/state-of-the-game-address/p1)

A lot of "Sorry everyone, we are combatting the issues!"

 

It made me try to log in. Are the forums member only?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 24, 2014, 07:04:37 AM
They have far and away the worst official forums I have ever seen.  Ever.  I'm not talking about the users/moderators, it is the layout, format, registration, categories etc.  Just insane.  Like it was designed by a psychopath.

I tried to sign in but it doesn't find my account.  So I assume since it's so terrible it probably has its own login/password I have to create.  I try to create one and it wants an "Invitation" that does not exist.  I thought it was the worst ever just reading, I should have known it would get even worse trying to login.

Copied from SA:
Quote
"As it’s now two and a half weeks since we officially launched on April 4, I think it’s a good time to bring everyone up to date on The Elder Scrolls Online service, maintenance windows, and what we’re doing to add content, make the game better, and address some issues that are near and dear to the community.

First and foremost, please know that we are doing everything we can to combat the gold spammers and bots – especially ones that “camp” dungeon bosses – that you see in game. I play the game every day; I see them too, and yes, they drive me crazy. We have had a daily running battle with them ever since the game launched – moving them from global chat, to in-game email, to creating bogus guilds and inviting players – and we continue to take measures to keep them away from players, even when it isn’t always apparent that we are. Most of the battle has been on the back end of the game – we regularly ban accounts involved in spam and bot activity – our teams are working on better systems to identify those accounts and characters that are doing black market activities, and we’re also working on some game feature refinement to make it harder for them to acquire gold in the first place. Fighting black market activity like gold selling spam and farming bots is a marathon, not a sprint, but we will do whatever we can to reduce their impact on the game.

The scope of the black market activity accounts for up to 85% of Customer Service emails/calls. Because of this huge influx of contact relating to this one issue, our CS team has been slower to react to other problems than planned – our sincere apologies if you have been held up for a long period of time waiting for CS to respond to you. Again, our goal is to keep this activity away from you so you don’t have to contact Customer Service in the first place.

Also very visible was last week’s gold “duping” (duplication) bug – where players could manipulate stacks of items in their inventory to create copies. We fixed the problem and banned the accounts of the worst offenders And yes, we erroneously caught up some legitimate accounts in that ban, for which we apologize – all erroneously banned accounts were reinstated within about 8 hours. Contrary to some reports, exploitation of this bug did not result in destabilizing the ESO economy in any way. We did turn off guild banks to limit the spread of the problem, but that was only until we put up a new version of the game that fixed the exploit later that evening.

All of these fixes have resulted in several more maintenance periods than we planned for – we know that everyone wants to play the game and hates downtime – but please be aware that every time we take down the servers for maintenance, it is either to fix a problem or put up an update that makes the game better. We are working on shortening the length of maintenances, this will get better over time.

So, here’s the list of our more prominent fixes since launch, as well as info about ongoing support that we’re doing for ESO:

Fixed the bug where a small percentage of players lost their expansion bank slots.
Fixed quest-blocking bugs, especially ones in Coldharbour, that prevented players from completing either a main quest step, or the Coldharbour zone.
Fixed many other quest bugs not related to the above where items/NPCs didn’t spawn properly.
Fixed the Greenshade (Aldmeri Dominion zone) problem, which caused the zone to crash every few hours. This one was fixed on 4/4, but was a problem during early access.
Fixed two dupe issues: the above one involving stacked items, and another (on a much smaller scale) involving crafting hireling emails.
Put many back-end fixes and procedures in place to block black market gold farmer activity.

We still have much to do – there still other quest problems on our fix list, most of them involving the situation where they become “de-synched” from the zone and don’t spawn their items or NPCs properly. We are in process of putting up our first major update to the game on our Play Test Server (PTS), which includes many updates to the game, including class and weapon ability tweaks, content fixes, and updates to almost all game systems. It also contains our new end-game Adventure Zone, Craglorn, with Veteran content aimed at 4 and 12-man groups. So stay tuned for PTS patch notes for all the other fixes that we’ve been working on. This is a major update to the game, so it will be on PTS for at least a week or 10 days for testing before we take it live.

We’re working on fixing problems, we’re combatting black market gold farmers, and we have a hefty new patch coming shortly. ESO is already an awesome game, and it will only get better from here. Thanks for your patience and support, and I’ll see you in Tamriel. - Matt"

His dismissal of the dupe bug pissed me off.  It did not "result in destabilizing the economy" because there is no economy since the AH system sucks so much ass.  It's absolutely going to result in some PvP guilds having all their gank squads decked out in legendaries.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2014, 07:13:35 AM
D3 said the same thing, that they got the biggest offenders, no huge effect, blah blah blah. It was horseshit. The economy became completely unsalvagable because of it, and I believe it was the last nail in the coffin that forced them to remove the AH.

You can't handwave dupes like this in a MMO, and then in the same post say you are combating gold farmers. What?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 24, 2014, 07:56:05 AM
I wish they had an AH system that sucked.  I wish they had any AH system at all!  I also like the game very much but I intend to cancel my sub, too.  :(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on April 24, 2014, 08:12:29 AM
Remember the good old days, when MMOs would have a rocky start and then throw free months at their subscribers as a retention mechanism?  That actually did a good job of making me stick around. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 24, 2014, 08:15:03 AM
Remember the good old days, when MMOs would have a rocky start and then throw free months at their subscribers as a retention mechanism?  That actually did a good job of making me stick around. 

Yeah, that's not the strategy here. They are pulling as much front loaded cash as they can.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 24, 2014, 08:51:31 AM
I wish they had an AH system that sucked.  I wish they had any AH system at all!  I also like the game very much but I intend to cancel my sub, too.  :(

It's weird, right? It's just not bad.

Here's my counter-intuitive take: for all that people said they wanted it to feel like Elder Scrolls, it feels too much like Elder Scrolls. For all the bleating about it not feeling like TES, I totally think it does, particularly Oblivion/Skyrim TES with its quest markers and every marked location having a story to follow. So you start wondering why you're not playing a single player Elder Scrolls game, since those didn't have to make concessions to accommodate large masses of players.

I bet the PvP might've squeezed a month out of me. That 90 days is disastrous. If you have a one sided battle, like mine was, there's no way you can see what it's about before your free month is up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on April 24, 2014, 11:16:39 AM
Remember the good old days, when MMOs would have a rocky start and then throw free months at their subscribers as a retention mechanism?  That actually did a good job of making me stick around. 

Yeah, that's not the strategy here. They are pulling as much front loaded cash as they can.
And then they get to do it all over again next quarter!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on April 25, 2014, 04:34:38 AM
They have far and away the worst official forums I have ever seen.  Ever.  I'm not talking about the users/moderators, it is the layout, format, registration, categories etc.  Just insane.  Like it was designed by a psychopath.
Probably made by the guy in charge of making their UIs, in his spare time :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 25, 2014, 10:55:40 AM
The dialogue on the npcs in Hollow City does not update after finishing the main quest which was a big letdown for me as I'd come to expect something more from this game (I admit I expected too much). I really can't see myself subbing for too long especially since the pvp (opposition) seems a bit lacklustre at the moment (and the fact that the opponents can't see what guild you represent does take some of the fun out of it)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on April 25, 2014, 03:05:24 PM
Nicely detailed review on Gamespot:

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-review/1900-6415741/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 28, 2014, 07:46:57 AM
Love the game. Best class system around imo. But the reason I'm unsubbing is because of the ability lag, weapon swap lag and just the general unresponsive Ness of combat. It's hard to pull of decent combos.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 28, 2014, 08:31:06 AM
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.  Especially since actual guild features like the bank and auction house stop allowing deposits/new auctions if you dip below ten and fifty people respectively.  I am also going to assume they didn't test that well and that entire guild banks/AH's will be bugged.  Maybe even their billing run.

I like the quests so I enjoy doing the other factions' zones but I might be in the minority there.  The people in veteran ranks now probably like playing a lot so they will be fine with it but when most people get there in another month or two (if they stay that long) they are going to feel like they hit a brick wall at how slow it is.

I need to get all these quests done before something bad happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 28, 2014, 08:37:07 AM
This is one of those scenarios that desperately needs informal anecdotal analysis, alongside queries to guilds and any form of player census that can be managed.

Because, knowing that Paelos has only a remotely nonzero possibility of being wrong about the box sales pump&dump explanation, zenimax is going to be extremely cagey or possibly completely opaque in terms of providing server population numbers and subscription numbers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 28, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
I really love the quests and some other things but I totally agree with the reviewer above.  I try, but can't, find any reason to group and this bothers me even though I enjoy playing MMOs solo the majority of the time.  It's nearly everything about being in a group that I don't like in ESO.  Some people like to explore dungeons, some people want to rush through;  I like to read, most people don't etc.  I suppose if you can find three very like minded people who enjoy exactly the same sorts of things you do, it would be great.  So when does THAT ever happen?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 28, 2014, 11:10:35 AM
This is one of those scenarios that desperately needs informal anecdotal analysis, alongside queries to guilds and any form of player census that can be managed.

Because, knowing that Paelos has only a remotely nonzero possibility of being wrong about the box sales pump&dump explanation, zenimax is going to be extremely cagey or possibly completely opaque in terms of providing server population numbers and subscription numbers.
Anecdotal evidence could come from how many instances are up since it's a megaserver.  Naturally on launch day there were so many instances of the newbie areas that you could log in/out ten times and be in a different one each time.  Only way to tell really is by seeing if the same people are around when you log back in.  I haven't noticed even a second instance of a zone since the level 43 area.  I'm probably somewhat ahead of the levelling curve (and playing the least popular faction) but I still find it surprising there aren't enough people for even a second instance.

I really love the quests and some other things but I totally agree with the reviewer above.  I try, but can't, find any reason to group and this bothers me even though I enjoy playing MMOs solo the majority of the time.  It's nearly everything about being in a group that I don't like in ESO.  Some people like to explore dungeons, some people want to rush through;  I like to read, most people don't etc.  I suppose if you can find three very like minded people who enjoy exactly the same sorts of things you do, it would be great.  So when does THAT ever happen?
I've done most of the regular dungeons and have decided I don't really like them due to design decisions, bugs and group problems like these.  I'm the tank and I like to at least listen to the quest dialogue but when I tried to do that I would hear combat in the background within ten seconds because others had just clicked through.  And then when I want to move on no one is there because one person is looking at bookshelves, someone else is looting every single pot/sack for cooking mats and the last guy is off picking the lock on a treasure chest.  I just did them to get them finished, I don't want to go back.  I have no interest in the veteran versions, which is a whole other pile or problems.  It also means I have very little interest in this whole craglorn stuff they are working on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 28, 2014, 11:26:05 AM
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.  Especially since actual guild features like the bank and auction house stop allowing deposits/new auctions if you dip below ten and fifty people respectively.

It is not likely that a sub lapsing would result in a character being deleted so there could be plenty of guilds with "50" members but only a dozen actually subscribing/playing and the guild still qualifying for the benefits of 50 members.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on April 28, 2014, 11:37:15 AM
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.

Considering the game requires you to give 30 days prior notice before canceling your sub, and thus had to have canceled on the same day you started your free month, I imagine a lot of people will be locked in for an extra month they don't necessarily want, and will be quite pissed off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 28, 2014, 11:39:18 AM
They have claimed that non subscribed members don't count.  Or maybe you get unguilded once your suscription lapses, we'll find out soon.
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.

Considering the game requires you to give 30 days prior notice before canceling your sub, and thus had to have canceled on the same day you started your free month, I imagine a lot of people will be locked in for an extra month they don't necessarily want, and will be quite pissed off.
What?  Really?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on April 28, 2014, 11:46:37 AM
lol if that is true as precisely worded

they just added the first month sub effectively to the box price of the game for anyone who hadn't immediately unsubbed day one


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 28, 2014, 11:52:04 AM
I did some grouping for VR content where the exp gain from doing stuff "properly" is really slow. It was with guildies so it wasn't as bad as it gets but it was still continuous running from point a to point b to point c mowing down any mobs without any inkling of difficulty (except maybe for being awake enough to get the game to acknowledge your participation). There are ofcourse the veteran modes for dungeons but they haven't really impressed me and for some reason the pvp in TESO seems somehow off for my personal taste though I can't really say what the problem is. I did enjoy the (single-player) experience to 50 and finishing the main quest + most of the other bigger quests for my alliance but I'm seriously considering cancelling the game before the first monthly payment in the next few days due to a general lack of interest in what more the game has to offer at this point  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
They have claimed that non subscribed members don't count.  Or maybe you get unguilded once your suscription lapses, we'll find out soon.
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.

Considering the game requires you to give 30 days prior notice before canceling your sub, and thus had to have canceled on the same day you started your free month, I imagine a lot of people will be locked in for an extra month they don't necessarily want, and will be quite pissed off.
What?  Really?

If true, that's the exactly the kind of fuckup I've been waiting for. It also would completely confirm my point that the sub model is a scam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on April 28, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
lol if that is true as precisely worded

they just added the first month sub effectively to the box price of the game for anyone who hadn't immediately unsubbed day one

So they went the pornsite model for billing?  :why_so_serious:

not shocked though... from what I been hearing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on April 28, 2014, 01:24:18 PM
Lets ignore the bugs.

This is a Terrible Elder scrolls game.

This is a mediocre MMO using a tried and tired format.

Then, there are huge bugs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 28, 2014, 01:31:48 PM
lol if that is true as precisely worded

they just added the first month sub effectively to the box price of the game for anyone who hadn't immediately unsubbed day one

So they went the pornsite model for billing?  :why_so_serious:

not shocked though... from what I been hearing.
Considering it says
ACCOUNT STATUS: Active - Cancelled (You have 5 days of game time remaining.)
for me after cancelling it just today i'd say that that is bs and probably has something to do with the fact that they were checking (and reserving) your credit card or paypal for the full sub amount (so for example it was about €35 for me since I was going to go for the 3 month option) instead of the usual dollar or so (not saying that that in itself wasn't a pretty bad move).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 28, 2014, 01:38:44 PM
Well, we shall find out. I wouldn't imagine it's true, but it provides excellent fodder for the money grab.

Also, if they release numbers at all about subs or users, it will be a whitewashed lie.

How many subs do you have?
WE HAD 500,000 AT LAUNCH! WHEE!
No, how many paying customers do you have today?
...
WE HAD 500,000 AT LAUNCH!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on April 28, 2014, 04:43:43 PM
I just cancelled my sub, and I saw nothing that would indicate they would be charging me anyway.  Also, I got the following email:

Quote
This message confirms that you have successfully cancelled your subscription to The Elder Scrolls Online. You will no longer be charged for a subscription on a recurring basis, and your access to the game will expire at the end of your current subscription cycle.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 28, 2014, 09:35:43 PM
Another thing that everyone who paid for this thing should be aware of:

Crazy shit happens when a new MMO company tries to auto-bill people for the first time.

Prepare yourselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 29, 2014, 01:47:22 AM
They have claimed that non subscribed members don't count.  Or maybe you get unguilded once your suscription lapses, we'll find out soon.
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.

Considering the game requires you to give 30 days prior notice before canceling your sub, and thus had to have canceled on the same day you started your free month, I imagine a lot of people will be locked in for an extra month they don't necessarily want, and will be quite pissed off.
What?  Really?

If true, that's the exactly the kind of fuckup I've been waiting for. It also would completely confirm my point that the sub model is a scam.

I unsubbed yesterday, and it says that I have 4 days left, and that's it. It went smoothly and it doesn't say anywhere that I am going to get charged.

BUT

I just remembered that I got charged on the day I the early access expired and I had to put in the release key. A friend of mine who works in a bak told me that's just them "pinging" your account to see if it's valid and that they are reserving the payment and that it's not a real payment. Considering that was surprising and confusing to begin with, I wonder if they could go through with that and cash on the "free month" of the unsubbers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on April 29, 2014, 06:27:55 AM
They have claimed that non subscribed members don't count.  Or maybe you get unguilded once your suscription lapses, we'll find out soon.
It's going to be very interesting over the next week as we see how many people are lost to the subscription kicking in.

Considering the game requires you to give 30 days prior notice before canceling your sub, and thus had to have canceled on the same day you started your free month, I imagine a lot of people will be locked in for an extra month they don't necessarily want, and will be quite pissed off.
What?  Really?

If true, that's the exactly the kind of fuckup I've been waiting for. It also would completely confirm my point that the sub model is a scam.

I unsubbed yesterday, and it says that I have 4 days left, and that's it. It went smoothly and it doesn't say anywhere that I am going to get charged.

BUT

I just remembered that I got charged on the day I the early access expired and I had to put in the release key. A friend of mine who works in a bak told me that's just them "pinging" your account to see if it's valid and that they are reserving the payment and that it's not a real payment. Considering that was surprising and confusing to begin with, I wonder if they could go through with that and cash on the "free month" of the unsubbers.

Luckily I was going to pay with paypal so contesting any transaction they'd try is easy (compared to other payment options)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 29, 2014, 06:38:16 AM
Version 1.0.6 patch notes. (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/89332)  Not sure if those are going in though since the patch apparently screwed up the EU servers.

They added a loot timer to all the delve bosses, that's going to piss a lot of people off.  Didn't bother to tell us what the timer was either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 29, 2014, 07:04:38 AM
This thread reminded me to unsub. Thanks.

I got my monies worth in the last month. Didn't make it to max level thanks to my wonderful 1 year old teething daughter, but I had a great time thinking about builds and testing out different mechanics. Game is too buggy for me right now in any case.

I'll probably come back at a later date once things have been smoothed out. Might even be F2P then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on April 29, 2014, 08:54:26 AM
Yeah, it reminded me, too.  I hope they fix the things I dislike so much so I can play again.  I'm not sure I can handle not having an AH or something when there's so many things to collect.  Some of us, I'm sure I'm not the only one, dislike joining HUGE guilds, which is the only way I can see selling your stuff will work. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 29, 2014, 10:15:15 AM
I've joined a couple large merchant guilds to see if it would help but the auction house UI is just utter garbage.  You can't find anything unless you are willing to carefully scan page after page of mostly junk.  Since you can't see what your item sells for people just make wild guesses.  Plus it takes a punitive 30% of the sale.  Lack of a good AH also means zone chat is 90% WTS/WTB spam.

Oh here's another terrible idea or maybe bug.  If you send an item CoD it takes something like 10%, if you send two items in the same mail it takes 20%, then 30% and so on.  So if you want to sell a suit of armor you need to send seven different mails...

Random rant - Hirelings.  There are skills in most craft lines to get a mail once a day with a few mats in them.  At the second level you get a chance of getting the important improvement mats that turn whites into greens etc.  Even though mail is account bound the hireling rewards won't show up until you log onto the character that has them.  Worse yet that is when the timer resets.  So if you don't log in until ten at night, the next day you don't get the mails until ten the next night.  If you don't login for a week and expect your seven mails you're out of luck, you get one mail.  Even crazier is that the final skill point into hirelings make them come every 12 hours which to be useful would mean you would have to log in during the morning and then again at night, on every character that has hirelings.

It's just so frustrating that this is another game with really good quests and storyline being screwed up and abandoned because of terrible core systems and bugs.  It's like The Secret World all over again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 29, 2014, 10:54:21 AM
The CoD thing and AH cut are hysterical. Thank you for that.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on April 29, 2014, 02:22:52 PM
Another thing that everyone who paid for this thing should be aware of:

Crazy shit happens when a new MMO company tries to auto-bill people for the first time.

Prepare yourselves.

Since my bank card info got stolen and I'm on a new card number, I am safe from all harm!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 01, 2014, 05:15:55 AM
Launch recap and future plans. (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/05/01/the-road-ahead---may-1st)  Five free days for the problems.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 01, 2014, 11:03:50 AM
Lol Death Recap is a feature.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 01, 2014, 03:36:57 PM
I didn't see any addition of an AH in there so...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 01, 2014, 04:24:30 PM
Maybe it's in the Death Recap.

I'm still chuckling at that bullet point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 01, 2014, 06:57:11 PM
Death recap was probably the feature I used the most in my WoW dps meter thing!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 01, 2014, 07:38:19 PM
Death recap was probably the feature I used the most in my WoW dps meter thing!

Oh no doubt, but to put that in as a feature point just seemed ironic to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 02, 2014, 03:47:07 AM
What's odd about TESO isn't that it's in its death spiral/lining up to F2P already, it's the near-total lack of drama about it from most people: No screaming ultimatums to devs, no True Believers ranting about how it's secretly the WoW-killer we need just give them more time, nothing like that -  people have just bought it, played a month, and quietly gone "Nope" then quit. Compare it to SWTOR or WAR or, hell, even TSW and it's noticeable by its absence.

That's probably more damning, mind you - at least when someone is making obscene suggestions to the official boards about how the devs know (in the biblical sense) unclean goats if they don't make this one small change/bugfix/complete redesign of the entire game, it means they care. Apathy means the customer is just gone, and probably permanently: A- "Hey, remember TESO? It's free now" B - "Meh~".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 02, 2014, 04:50:37 AM
You can't post on the official ESO boards without some sort of "invitation".  I am guessing the only ones who got this are the people who signed up for the forums back in early beta.  Most of them either left before launch or are very much fanboys.  I am quite certain their boards would be on fire if anyone with a subscription were able to post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 02, 2014, 04:56:00 AM
What's odd about TESO isn't that it's in its death spiral/lining up to F2P already, it's the near-total lack of drama about it from most people

The final stage of grief is acceptance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on May 02, 2014, 06:00:40 AM
You can't post on the official ESO boards without some sort of "invitation".  I am guessing the only ones who got this are the people who signed up for the forums back in early beta.  Most of them either left before launch or are very much fanboys.  I am quite certain their boards would be on fire if anyone with a subscription were able to post.

Um what  :headscratch:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 02, 2014, 06:22:22 AM
You can't post on the official ESO boards without some sort of "invitation".  I am guessing the only ones who got this are the people who signed up for the forums back in early beta.  Most of them either left before launch or are very much fanboys.  I am quite certain their boards would be on fire if anyone with a subscription were able to post.

The forums (which are the worst forums ever in existence, seriously who fucking made those things?) use your real name/email address/login name as your UserID. So nope. Won't go there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 02, 2014, 06:38:14 AM
You can't post on the official ESO boards without some sort of "invitation".  I am guessing the only ones who got this are the people who signed up for the forums back in early beta.  Most of them either left before launch or are very much fanboys.  I am quite certain their boards would be on fire if anyone with a subscription were able to post.

Um what  :headscratch:

This is correct, at least for me.  I bought a new copy and gave my existing copy to my wife (so she could play any race in any faction).  There is no mechanism for me to get a forum account, and I contacted customer support about it but unsurprisingly I have not received a response.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 02, 2014, 06:43:46 AM
The forums (which are the worst forums ever in existence, seriously who fucking made those things?) use your real name/email address/login name as your UserID. So nope. Won't go there.
I've never been able to login with any combination of info.

Edit: I just dug through my email and it looks like I was sent an invitation code on head start day, tried to use it now and it has "expired".  So you get a mystery email and have a limited amount of time to register for the forums.  At any rate what it means is only a very small number of people can post there compared to the number of people who bought the game.

As mentioned the forums were designed by a dimwitted sociopath so they aren't very useful anyways.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on May 02, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Why is that video 38 minutes long?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 02, 2014, 06:48:00 AM
Joe has a lot of anger to share, and costume changes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 06, 2014, 04:23:25 AM
If you want a bit of a mind fuck You can look at this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnCIW7JwnVI)

And here's him out of character talking about what he really thinks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nHT2j9CjB8)



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 06, 2014, 07:15:58 AM
I like Francis.  He makes me laugh like an idiot.  Anyway, I pretty much agree with everything he said.  I was hoping the game would be wonderful or, at least, good.  It really was just okay.  During beta it was good fun but I think that was mainly because it was new.  Playing it like it's a single player game is fine, but not for a game with a sub.  Srsly, you can just play a single player game and get ALL the content, not just a bit of the content.  There's so many things missing and broken in ESO that if I'd known, I don't think I would have backed it at all.  I'm sad about it, too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 06, 2014, 07:20:19 AM
I haven't heard any sub numbers yet, or press releases from ESO. I believe the free time is over now, right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on May 06, 2014, 08:08:54 AM
I like Francis.  He makes me laugh like an idiot.  Anyway, I pretty much agree with everything he said.  I was hoping the game would be wonderful or, at least, good.  It really was just okay.  During beta it was good fun but I think that was mainly because it was new.  Playing it like it's a single player game is fine, but not for a game with a sub.  Srsly, you can just play a single player game and get ALL the content, not just a bit of the content.  There's so many things missing and broken in ESO that if I'd known, I don't think I would have backed it at all.  I'm sad about it, too.

Completely opposite. I understand Francis is a caricature of the internet basement dweller, but putting a voice and face on the idea of that just makes me hate the guy. The man behind the character I actually like and I can watch the second vid - the first one I couldn't make it thru the first 20 seconds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 06, 2014, 09:53:37 AM
I haven't heard any sub numbers yet, or press releases from ESO. I believe the free time is over now, right?
They gave everyone five free days so it has the rest of this week I guess.  I doubt you will be hearing anything about sub numbers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 06, 2014, 10:08:56 AM
Yeah, if there is decent retention, they might wait 'til the end of May to release some positive press, when Wildstar approaches release to counter it....Or they'll "forever hold their peace"  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 06, 2014, 10:12:22 AM
I like Francis.  He makes me laugh like an idiot.  Anyway, I pretty much agree with everything he said.  I was hoping the game would be wonderful or, at least, good.  It really was just okay.  During beta it was good fun but I think that was mainly because it was new.  Playing it like it's a single player game is fine, but not for a game with a sub.  Srsly, you can just play a single player game and get ALL the content, not just a bit of the content.  There's so many things missing and broken in ESO that if I'd known, I don't think I would have backed it at all.  I'm sad about it, too.

Completely opposite. I understand Francis is a caricature of the internet basement dweller, but putting a voice and face on the idea of that just makes me hate the guy. The man behind the character I actually like and I can watch the second vid - the first one I couldn't make it thru the first 20 seconds.

This one wasn't very good, I agree, but I saw the open the servers one and it was hysterical.  It was so like the forums and WoW chat only personified.  I had no idea he did this with all games.  At first, with the WoW one, I thought he was serious.  Maybe it's more funny when you think he really is a internet basement dweller.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on May 06, 2014, 11:27:44 AM
When he says he considers the current feature set of WoW "the baseline for an MMO," what I hear him saying is that he requires his MMGs to have a decade of development and iteration, a team measured in the hundreds, and hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into them.

I understand his basic point, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. Not in an age when players have been brainwashed into the entitlement mentality of F2P, and we are all well-acquainted with the downsides of Napoleonic budgeting.

EDIT: I mean, FFS, the whole issue with ESO is that the design tries to do everything WoW did, plus its own unique stuff, and in the end, it sounds like they were only able to muster enough focus to polish up the PvP endgame - which was the part they'd worked on the longest. It's too little butter scraped over too much bread.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
He's got a point though. It may not be fair to developers but the feature sets he's talking about (raid finder, battlegrounds, etc.) are all user-friendly features that you don't much think about until you get in a game that doesn't have them yet needs them. Then you think, "Why am I paying for this game without an Auction House when I could be playing WoW?" It's like quest journals, auto-saves, in-game maps and minimaps in single-player RPG's. It was ok not to have them until somebody had them and then you got dinged if you didn't have them.

WoW IS the baseline because if you are asking for a $15 a month subscription, you are instantly competing against WoW. Just like WoW was competing against EQ1 with its multiple expansions and five years' worth of developed content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 06, 2014, 12:16:46 PM
The Secret World and GW2 set new standards for me with regard to MMO gameplay that left ESO feeling rather poorly done and uninteresting.  Then again, I lost interest in Elder Scrolls after Morrowind when they started messing with the combat system.  Having said that, I think the guy in the video may have unrealistic expectations with regard to MMO release, whiel still making a few good points about the state of ESO.  I felt the same way by the second time I reached level 12.  It never felt like things were going to get better.  Even the illusion of improvement by endgame is enough to keep me playing... I'm the guy that plays every trash MMO out there and this is usually the reason.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on May 06, 2014, 11:31:26 PM
When he says he considers the current feature set of WoW "the baseline for an MMO," what I hear him saying is that he requires his MMGs to have a decade of development and iteration, a team measured in the hundreds, and hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into them.

I understand his basic point, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. Not in an age when players have been brainwashed into the entitlement mentality of F2P, and we are all well-acquainted with the downsides of Napoleonic budgeting.


Reasonable expectations my ass. This is idiotic. The players aren't here to cuddlefuck you. They're here to play the best game they can find. If you can't keep pace with the people at the front of the pack, then that's your problem, not theirs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on May 07, 2014, 12:55:43 AM
If you can't keep pace with the people at the front of the pack, then that's your problem, not theirs.

You will never, never, never, never, never be able to compete with a game that has been in continuous development for 13 years, by a team of hundreds, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the original game, monthly subscriptions from millions of players, and four boxed expansions.

If you seriously expect an MMG at its launch to be comparable with WoW in its current state, with all those years and resources behind it...

Then I seriously don't expect to hear any further complaints about WoW stifling the industry, about WoW-clones, or about paying subscriptions. Because you're all getting what you're willing to pay for.

EDITS: lots of grammar errors because it's late


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on May 07, 2014, 01:17:02 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/qWVRPF7.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on May 07, 2014, 01:22:26 AM
Welp, that makes two of us.

Here's to another decade of WoW!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 07, 2014, 01:48:58 AM
TESO definitely has some qualities, things that can't be found in any other MMORPG. Sadly, what everyone is saying is absolutely true: a lack of quality of life items that is hard to swallow these days and that in my opinion cannot be justified with "less than 13 years of development". It should just be there.

What killed it prematurely for me though isn't even that though. It's the combat. Supposedly action-y, it takes more than just some vague aiming now to make it interesting. This would have been awesome four years ago, but after all the TERAs, Age of Conan, The Secret World, Neverwinter and the likes this is not new anymore and isn't enough to make the repetitive act of combat bearable in the long run. It takes animations, sounds, visuals, particles, effects, and lots more hidden details like timing, pace, weight, oomph, things that make it just fun to bash things over and over as opposed to mindnumbingly boring.

As I stated many times now, TERA's combat ruined most MMORPGs for me as they now all feel old, stiff, obsolete and unsatisfying in that department. But what totally murdered my will to play TESO is the fact that I was playing Dark Souls 2 at the same time. And when you play THAT combat, you simply can't stomach TESO's pathetic sword-flailing. If it weren't for the hard comparison with Dark Souls I would have probably played this a couple of weeks more. To be able to entertain me beyond that? I am not sure, maybe it's not even possible, maybe it's not TESO's fault, maybe I'm just over long time MMORPG commitment. There's too many good games out these days to stick to just one huge timesink.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on May 07, 2014, 04:52:14 AM
If you can't keep pace with the people at the front of the pack, then that's your problem, not theirs.

You will never, never, never, never, never be able to compete with a game that has been in continuous development for 13 years, by a team of hundreds, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the original game, monthly subscriptions from millions of players, and four boxed expansions.

If you seriously expect an MMG at its launch to be comparable with WoW in its current state, with all those years and resources behind it...

Then I seriously don't expect to hear any further complaints about WoW stifling the industry, about WoW-clones, or about paying subscriptions. Because you're all getting what you're willing to pay for.

EDITS: lots of grammar errors because it's late

I don't think the issue is players comparing it to Wow, I think the problem is that most MMO devs have not realized that in order to compete with WoW you can't try to copy wow.  You need to pick a few significant core ideas and execute those well.  The problem is MMO developers seem to try and be everything and end up doing nothing well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on May 07, 2014, 05:11:16 AM
What I got from the guy-who-plays-Francis's video was that he was saying that there's a basic set of minimum functionality you need to have at launch in an MMO, and that baseline is set by WoW.

I.e., working chat, grouping tools (e.g. dungeon finder), adequate inventory & storage, working guild tools, effective hack/bot prevention, serviceable customer service, questing system, crafting system, etc. etc. Edit the list according to the feature set your game launches with. If it ain't working it shouldn't be there.

Sure, you're not going to have 10 years worth of content like WoW but if your basic game and interface don't work at least as well as WoW in the key areas then why are you even bothering? And I agree with that entirely. I'm not playing WoW now but I have zero interest in playing another MMO that tries to copy WoW but doesn't do it as well as WoW does. What's the point?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on May 07, 2014, 06:30:53 AM
TESO left me feeling that it would have been so much better as a single player game.
Alot of the bugs (that I encountered) wouldn't have existed and they could have easily made the (non-mmo) combat better. Also the quests/plot could have been great if it had been made for a single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 07, 2014, 06:43:52 AM
TESO is a complete waste of time and resources that could have given us Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell, or whatever region they decided.

Instead they dumped all this effort into a produce that is painfully average and offers nothing to the MMO genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 07, 2014, 07:31:30 AM
I don't think any Bethesda resources went into TESO though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on May 07, 2014, 08:13:00 AM
Only the goodwill of the Elder Scrolls name.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 07, 2014, 08:24:13 AM
Only the goodwill of the Elder Scrolls name.

Which got tarnished by the release of this garbage. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on May 07, 2014, 08:24:52 AM
I completely agree.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Count Nerfedalot on May 07, 2014, 10:01:47 AM
WoW did not succeed by innovating OR by cloning the market leader with one or two new innovations. It succeeded by taking the best (or at least good and proven workable) ideas from all of its competitors, working very very hard over many iterations to integrate them into a seamless and well-functioning whole, and integrating that with a very well designed and thoroughly fleshed out world, and polishing all that till it all WORKED (except for launch scale issues, but even that they handled better than any of their competition at the time). AND their ace in the hole was providing an open extensible UI which made it possible for the users to fill in the vast majority of the gaps they'd overlooked. And underneath it all they had high-quality, robust, well-designed software and systems, while on top of it all they had high-quality, well-designed, unified theme presentation from art style and color palette to audio and animations and etc. And yes it had all of the must-have bullet point features of the time, and that list is much longer now, BUT (almost) all of those features WORKED and fit well with all the other moving parts. It was a huge, expensive undertaking requiring an army of top-notch skilled professionals at every single level and role.  And it changed the marketplace for a generation at least.

NOBODY has since done all those things, much less one-upped it, and thus there have been NO equivalent successes.

I really think the problem is not so much how much money it takes, as how much skill and effort and time it takes to do absolutely every single piece right, from dungeon design and class balance and art direction to database design and network code and client functionality.  Almost every single "failure" in mmos or software in general can be laid at the feet of bad management decisions shorting some critical aspect of design and/or making (or having externally imposed) critcally flawed design choices.

/bitter_software_engineer_rant_mode_off



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 07, 2014, 10:11:16 AM
I don't think any Bethesda resources went into TESO though.

Zenimax Online studios is funded as a subsidiary by Zenimax Media. They own Bethesda as well. So while Bethesda didn't provide resources directly to ESO, the parent company shifted resources to ESO that easily could have gone to Bethesda.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on May 07, 2014, 10:43:02 AM
I really think the problem is not so much how much money it takes, as how much skill and effort and time it takes to do absolutely every single piece right, from dungeon design and class balance and art direction to database design and network code and client functionality.  Almost every single "failure" in mmos or software in general can be laid at the feet of bad management decisions shorting some critical aspect of design and/or making (or having externally imposed) critcally flawed design choices.

/bitter_software_engineer_rant_mode_off

You have fully hit the nail on the head here.  Blizzard has always been derp-delay of game companies, but based on what I'd heard over the years they still had the most unified and disciplined business model.  Yeah, it's not an enterprise software or banking company level of discipline, but it's miles beyond the "hey we're a frat house of 20-something geeks" mentality of almost every other game developer out there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on May 07, 2014, 10:55:03 AM
You will never, never, never, never, never be able to compete with a game that has been in continuous development for 13 years, by a team of hundreds, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the original game, monthly subscriptions from millions of players, and four boxed expansions.

The advantages of entrenchment didn't seem to help every other shitty obsolete old MMO that got buried. If you're not willing to do anything drastically new and can't execute the old stuff even as well as it's already been done, then you deserve to fail.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 07, 2014, 10:57:09 AM
Quote
Almost every single "failure" in mmos or software in general can be laid at the feet of bad management decisions shorting some critical aspect of design and/or making (or having externally imposed) critcally flawed design choices.

don't understand why failure is in quotes; it's legitimately failure, as far as I can see.

and the torturous part about it is that those critically flawed design choices and bad management/developer decisions often times have, within a scant few months of game development time, put the project on a trajectory which becomes terminally unalterable within a surprisingly short time. I'm sure that in a lot of projects like these, devs are talking frankly amongst themselves about how the product will never work, but they are usually colluding to keep this fact unspoken, even to the rest of the rank and file working on the project.

I seriously bet that most MMO's, when they're just halfway done, have secretly been written off by management as a loss, but they keep mum about it to get as much back in returns as they possibly can.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 07, 2014, 11:01:16 AM
You have fully hit the nail on the head here.  Blizzard has always been derp-delay of game companies, but based on what I'd heard over the years they still had the most unified and disciplined business model.  Yeah, it's not an enterprise software or banking company level of discipline, but it's miles beyond the "hey we're a frat house of 20-something geeks" mentality of almost every other game developer out there.

Most game developers don't think they have to run their business as a business. Then, they end up failing because shit didn't get done.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 07, 2014, 11:02:39 AM
I seriously bet that most MMO's, when they're just halfway done, have secretly been written off by management as a loss, but they keep mum about it to get as much back in returns as they possibly can.

We knew this project was doomed 18 months out. I guarantee management knew it too.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: apocrypha on May 07, 2014, 11:37:43 AM
I'm tired of hearing companies say they're working on a "AAA" title. At best they'll release a "B" quality game.

2nd post of the thread, 6 years ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on May 07, 2014, 12:47:34 PM
TESO definitely has some qualities, things that can't be found in any other MMORPG.

I'm actually interested to hear what you think those qualities are. What does TESO do better than any other MMO, past or present?

I'm also right there with you on the Dark Souls ticket. I was playing the original DS (late, I think) shortly after Skyrim came out. I put in a good 80 hours of Skyrim and was looking forward to replaying, but actual melee combat in DS made Skyrim (and every other Elder Scrolls game) look really, really bad. Couldn't go back to Skyrim after that. Still can't. Way too simple.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on May 07, 2014, 02:21:03 PM
Dark Souls is awesome, but, I expect the same result if they announce they are working on a AAA Massively Multiplayer Dark Souls 3.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 07, 2014, 04:26:56 PM
TESO left me feeling that it would have been so much better as a single player game.
Alot of the bugs (that I encountered) wouldn't have existed and they could have easily made the (non-mmo) combat better. Also the quests/plot could have been great if it had been made for a single player game.
TESO is a complete waste of time and resources that could have given us Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell, or whatever region they decided.

Instead they dumped all this effort into a produce that is painfully average and offers nothing to the MMO genre.
ctrl-f TESO ctrl-h SWTOR.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on May 07, 2014, 05:19:52 PM
working chat, grouping tools (e.g. dungeon finder), adequate inventory & storage, working guild tools, effective hack/bot prevention, serviceable customer service, questing system, crafting system, etc. etc.

These should be modules that should be available for licensing much like engines are.   Every dev house keeps reinventing how to make a car from scratch, when in fact the industry as a whole should move towards just doing the visual design and otherwise using prefabricated parts.  I guess nobody's fabricating parts though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2014, 12:49:09 AM
I simply don't buy the 'oh no they ruined the brand' angle. The number of Skyrim fans who were going to buy Elder Scrolls 6 but oh no now they're not because some MMO by another team sucked is not a population worth measuring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 08, 2014, 03:05:51 AM
TESO definitely has some qualities, things that can't be found in any other MMORPG.

I'm actually interested to hear what you think those qualities are. What does TESO do better than any other MMO, past or present?

As stated multiple times, the zones are huge and literally packed with content and built in a way that rewards exploring them. I can't think of any other game that takes this so seriously.

The quests themselves are pretty good and short of The Secret World I'd say they are to my memory the most pleasant to carry out if you choose to listen to the sound bits.
Character customization (not visual) is good too, with lots of trees and skill to pick skills from.
Finally, the visuals are great for a MMORPG.

These are the qualities. But I admit the only "unique" trait is the first one: exploration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 08, 2014, 03:29:29 AM
I simply don't buy the 'oh no they ruined the brand' angle. The number of Skyrim fans who were going to buy Elder Scrolls 6 but oh no now they're not because some MMO by another team sucked is not a population worth measuring.

I think you are right about this.  But at the same time, if somehow Zenimax did divert money away from Bethesda in order to produce this turd, have they then significantly delayed the release of one of their better single player games (be it Elder Scrolls or Fallout related)?  Money invested in a huge shitty project like this is money that isn't be spent on something good.  That's bad for us, and it is bad for them.  What if something else comes along that make Elder Scrolls 6 redundant before it is ever released?  It could happen.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 08, 2014, 07:07:27 AM
These are the qualities. But I admit the only "unique" trait is the first one: exploration.

Which is their downfall if they're trying to make mainstream $$$.  Mainstream MMO gamers are achievers first, killers second, and explorers third.  Making a game with the reverse in mind guarantees you niche status. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 08, 2014, 07:11:26 AM
I simply don't buy the 'oh no they ruined the brand' angle. The number of Skyrim fans who were going to buy Elder Scrolls 6 but oh no now they're not because some MMO by another team sucked is not a population worth measuring.

It's about resources, less about branding. But still, I think you're underestimating the damage that a bad game and a long layoff does to a series. Instead of pre-ordering, people play the wait and see game. The game then stands on it's own merits at that point.

I don't think it's a good idea to work to gain some goodwill back.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 08, 2014, 07:16:16 AM
Yeah Nebu, especially because no matter how big and full of content they can make the world, it still takes one to two months to explore it all. After that, you are pretty much done with the game (and with their stupid monthly fee) if that's why you were liking it. That's why I tend to agree with whoever said this feels almost like a single player games. If you play it as a multiplayer game, there's better things out there or simply things as good as this. And if you play it as a solo game, there's absolutely RPGs out there. In both cases, it is not bad at all, it just doesn't seem to have great retention power for 2014 gaming habits.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 08, 2014, 08:08:22 AM
Oh yeah, the console versions have been delayed 6 months or so now. Hrrm.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 08, 2014, 08:11:51 AM
Oh yeah, the console versions have been delayed 6 months or so now. Hrrm.

That's hilarious.  "Push this shit out on PC... those people are used to buggy crap". 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 08, 2014, 08:21:44 AM
There's no way the console versions release with a sub. If they release at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 08, 2014, 09:16:32 AM
It's extra annoying because the PC version has a lot of consolitis in it, probably all for nothing since I doubt it will ever see the light of day on a console.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 08, 2014, 09:35:23 AM
Quote
For $20, eligible PC and Mac players will have the option to add a full, digital version of ESO on either the PS4 or the Xbox One with your character transfer(s), and another 30 days of included game time.
KEEP PLAYING GUYS


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 08, 2014, 12:29:30 PM
"Character transfers"? Are the console and PC versions not sharing the MEGASERVER?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 08, 2014, 12:46:37 PM
This is one the hilarious fuckups I was waiting for.

HAVE NO FEAR EVERYONE! FOR A SMALL FEE YOU TOO CAN PLAY ON THE CONSOLES THAT HAVE BEEN DELAYED!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on May 08, 2014, 12:53:23 PM
So does that $20 include the character transfer too or just the 30-day free on console for people that already paid for the game on PC? Or is that another fee?  :oh_i_see:

Man... I had no real interest in this game, but now I just have to play this when it goes F2P.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Count Nerfedalot on May 08, 2014, 02:37:40 PM

I don't think it's a good idea to work to gain some goodwill back.

I'm brain fried, but I'm sure there's either one too many or few negatives there? Or did I fall into the sarchasm?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
I simply don't buy the 'oh no they ruined the brand' angle. The number of Skyrim fans who were going to buy Elder Scrolls 6 but oh no now they're not because some MMO by another team sucked is not a population worth measuring.

It's about resources, less about branding. But still, I think you're underestimating the damage that a bad game and a long layoff does to a series. Instead of pre-ordering, people play the wait and see game. The game then stands on it's own merits at that point.

I don't think it's a good idea to work to gain some goodwill back.

Oblivion and Skyrim came out a bit over 5 years apart from each other. Does anyone doubt they'll have 6 out by 2016? Or think that by 2016 anyone will even remember ESO? What percentage of Skyrim buyers even tried ESO to have an opinion on it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2014, 03:23:13 PM
This is the internet. You don't need to try something to have an opinion of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 08, 2014, 03:34:29 PM
You do have to have heard of it. Only ~15% of Skyrim sales were on the PC (which still blows my mind.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 08, 2014, 04:15:43 PM
"Character transfers"? Are the console and PC versions not sharing the MEGASERVER?

No they do not.
So if anyone wants a half year headstart for the console version - you can pay additional $20 to play on PC and be eligible for transfer when the console is released and you get ONE MONTH SUB free.
WHAT A DEAL, FOLKS!?

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on May 08, 2014, 04:17:43 PM
"Character transfers"? Are the console and PC versions not sharing the MEGASERVER?

No they do not.
So if anyone wants a half year headstart for the console version - you can pay additional $20 to play on PC and be eligible for transfer when the console is released and you get ONE MONTH SUB free.
WHAT A DEAL, FOLKS!?

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

The miracle patch?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 08, 2014, 04:47:42 PM
You do have to have heard of it. Only ~15% of Skyrim sales were on the PC (which still blows my mind.)
Prelaunch, a lot of my console-only friends were hyped for it with the expectation of Skyrim Online. I can't wait for their tears when the console versions release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 08, 2014, 05:21:11 PM
Oblivion and Skyrim came out a bit over 5 years apart from each other. Does anyone doubt they'll have 6 out by 2016? Or think that by 2016 anyone will even remember ESO? What percentage of Skyrim buyers even tried ESO to have an opinion on it?

That's part of the reason I made the bet with you. I'm thinking they'll kill this to stop the confusion right when they're ready to launch the hype on their next real game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 08, 2014, 06:27:01 PM
The last few pages feel like the same set of pages that have occured previously in this thread. But this one jumped out at me:

If you can't keep pace with the people at the front of the pack, then that's your problem, not theirs.

You will never, never, never, never, never be able to compete with a game that has been in continuous development for 13 years, by a team of hundreds, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the original game, monthly subscriptions from millions of players, and four boxed expansions.

If you seriously expect an MMG at its launch to be comparable with WoW in its current state, with all those years and resources behind it...

Each MMO that comes out is up against every MMO that's already been out for however long each of them were. DAoC was up against the entirety of EQ to that point. Then CoX. SWG was up against the UO that had existed since the late 90s. WoW launched against the eighth expansion to EQ1 (which itself just launched its 20th...). GW2 was up against every fantasy MMO still live to that point. This is the challenge with any live service launching against any live server. Annualized one-offs don't need to worry about anything but the last game ensuring it was a proper ambassador for the next one.

But really, this is just semantics.

Players are not making comparisons between totality of offerings. They're inarticulately saying the current game sucks compared to the one they just left. For MMOs, statistically that probably means WoW.

It's not four expansions in WoW. It's just "I like dis stuff in WoW" vs "I'd like to like TESO but for the most part I don't, and my comparison baseline is WoW" (because, statistics).

Companies can do stupid things like say their game is up against WoW. Other companies do the smart thing by not making that comparison. But players will make the comparison. Asking them to be nicer or smarter about it is not the answer. Making a game that can stand up or at least carve out its own niche is.

TESO did neither.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on May 08, 2014, 08:18:17 PM
Um, we've got a looooong time for this to die before the next Elder Scrolls game comes out.  All indications point to Fallout being the next single player RPG from Bethesda so they'll have quite enough time for ESO to be a distant memory before they pull the brand out again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shatter on May 09, 2014, 05:04:23 AM
3 people in my guild tried it and all 3 have already stopped playing so I think that means I beat the game by not spending my money?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 09, 2014, 06:13:06 AM
I didn't hit level cap because I got into AA alpha, but this game was worth the cash for 3-4 weeks of fun. If I have to sit through a quest treadmill game, then ESO is probably the best one. Instead of collecting 10 bear asses or killing 15 mobs, you just go kill a boss and move on. It was better than most leveling games.

PVP was shit though.
Class system is probably the best out there with ArcheAge being close if not better (we'll see).

Game would of been better if they took out levels and just had you level up skills.

If you can find it on sale for $40, and you like MMO leveling with quests with an Elder Scrolls flavor, it's worth picking up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2014, 06:59:24 AM
Well, that's just saying the same thing you could say about every MMO since WoW.  Do you like combat less fun than every single player game ever?  Check.  Do you like running meaningless quests for hundreds of hours?  Check.  Are you willing to make huge graphical sacrifices in order to get 50 other players on your screen whom you wish would go the fuck away?  Check.  Do you love everything about levels and loathe organic skill progression?  Check.  Do you dislike actual role-playing?  Check.  Do you like be constantly reminded that investing real world cash will make your character better?  Check.

MMOs will never be truly fun again, because of all of the above, in my opinion.  It is no longer possible.  Sometimes a particular feature of a game will mask the shortcomings for a while, but at the end of the day this genre is broken beyond repair.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 09, 2014, 07:26:43 AM
Well, that's just saying the same thing you could say about every MMO since WoW.  Do you like combat less fun than every single player game ever?  Check.  Do you like running meaningless quests for hundreds of hours?  Check.  Are you willing to make huge graphical sacrifices in order to get 50 other players on your screen whom you wish would go the fuck away?  Check.  Do you love everything about levels and loathe organic skill progression?  Check.  Do you dislike actual role-playing?  Check.  Do you like be constantly reminded that investing real world cash will make your character better?  Check.

MMOs will never be truly fun again, because of all of the above, in my opinion.  It is no longer possible.  Sometimes a particular feature of a game will mask the shortcomings for a while, but at the end of the day this genre is broken beyond repair.

Yay for you I guess. I like MMOs because single player games, for the most part, bore me. I like playing games with friends even if I'm not grouped with them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2014, 07:46:52 AM
That's fair, but maybe that has more to do with the people than the game?  You could probably be having that same fun playing just about anything together.

I am generalizing, this doesn't necessarily apply to you specifically.  Some people will still find fun in these games, but that doesn't mean the genre is not in a terrible, terrible place.  It is a cash cow that is just about out of milk.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 09, 2014, 07:57:40 AM
MMO's aren't dead, it's just that not enough of them have started moving towards the single-player combat styles. A game like Destiny is going to do that, and probably open the floodgates of imitators.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 09, 2014, 08:08:00 AM
MMOs like TESO and its ilk are dying.  Changing the combat paradigm is something that has to happen...if Destiny does that (I know nothing about it), then it is doing something different as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 09, 2014, 08:09:07 AM
I need a new MMO.  I'm so bored with everything offered right now.  Luckily, I love single player games, too, but I still need an MMO.  Preferably with a guild full of people I'm acquainted with or strangers who won't expect anything from me because they understand that I can't handle the stress of being responsible.  What I want, what I really, really want, is an MMO where talking smack and using horribly obscene language is acceptable.  I miss that.  I don't think ESO is for me at the moment.  

Also, Cyrrex said paradigm and implied that it's shifting.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 09, 2014, 08:10:34 AM
I need a new MMO.  I'm so bored with everything offered right now.

This x 100.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 09, 2014, 08:22:35 AM
That's fair, but maybe that has more to do with the people than the game?  You could probably be having that same fun playing just about anything together.

I am generalizing, this doesn't necessarily apply to you specifically.  Some people will still find fun in these games, but that doesn't mean the genre is not in a terrible, terrible place.  It is a cash cow that is just about out of milk.

First don't assume what I could or couldn't find fun. Second, I like games that I can create builds, theorycraft and minmax stuff. That's typically MOBAs and MMOs. I usually like doing that with lots of other people. Even if I don't group with others, I do like playing in a shared space with others. That's pretty basic right there that a lot of people don't get.

Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible and the leveling is shitty questing, all the crafting, open world pvp, and other social dynamics of the game seem really really fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on May 09, 2014, 09:03:55 AM
TESO's minimal (and I even got a mod to make it even less) UI was great for a solo pve game but it made me feel really strange (and not happy) when it was time for pvp and I had to load a relatively intrusive UI to make sense of all (or atleast some) of what was happening in the combat there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on May 09, 2014, 10:25:00 AM
Well, that's just saying the same thing you could say about every MMO since WoW.  Do you like combat less fun than every single player game ever?  Check.  Do you like running meaningless quests for hundreds of hours?  Check.  Are you willing to make huge graphical sacrifices in order to get 50 other players on your screen whom you wish would go the fuck away?  Check.  Do you love everything about levels and loathe organic skill progression?  Check.  Do you dislike actual role-playing?  Check.  Do you like be constantly reminded that investing real world cash will make your character better?  Check.

MMOs will never be truly fun again, because of all of the above, in my opinion.  It is no longer possible.  Sometimes a particular feature of a game will mask the shortcomings for a while, but at the end of the day this genre is broken beyond repair.

I've been told that the genre is thriving. After all, WoW still has 12 million 11 million 10 million 9 million 8 million whatever number of players left, and the fact that everyone has to point to a decade-old game in decline to show how everything is hunky dory is apparently apropos of nothing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 09, 2014, 12:50:24 PM
WoW's in decline and nothing has come along to replace it. People outgrow these kind of life sinks and the core feedback loops that made these unique have jumped to other types of games anyway.

But that doesn't mean this genre is dead. It just means it's not getting the stuffed shirt press release VC crowd bubble-style attention it was getting in the mid-2000s.

That is apropos of nothing in terms of gamers seeking games to play.


Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible and the leveling is shitty questing, all the crafting, open world pvp, and other social dynamics of the game seem really really fun.

Every time you say "AA" I think Auto Assault :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 09, 2014, 01:03:56 PM
If only!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 09, 2014, 01:15:01 PM
If only! x2


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on May 09, 2014, 08:46:53 PM
I'll third that. I miss that game, shitty as it was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 09, 2014, 09:09:00 PM
Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible

How terrible? :X


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on May 10, 2014, 12:35:58 AM
the official "we are still working to solve a series of unique problems (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/05/08/eso-on-consoles--update)" announcement for the 6-month delay on the console versions. There's also some talk/rumours that TESO might get a f2p option when the console versions launch though I doubt they are stupid enough to confirm that in any way in the foreseeable future.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 10, 2014, 06:48:21 AM
Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible

How terrible? :X

It's just standard hotbar/tab target combat. I think it's shitty. A lot of people like it though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 11, 2014, 07:54:59 AM
Billing for the next month ran.  People who didn't resubscribe weren't instantly culled from guild lists, we'll see what happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 11, 2014, 08:18:06 AM
Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible

How terrible? :X

It's just standard hotbar/tab target combat. I think it's shitty. A lot of people like it though.

I thought AA had some physics involved in projectiles? No? :(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 11, 2014, 05:53:40 PM
Billing for the next month ran.  People who didn't resubscribe weren't instantly culled from guild lists, we'll see what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfslY_AvhLw


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 12, 2014, 01:19:29 PM
were any of the larger game mechanic/class balance issues handled this month, or was that all left alone due to larger more systemic issues getting handled?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 12, 2014, 01:41:05 PM
They nerfed one setup in PvP where vampires could kill entire raids full of people without even taking damage themselves, but that's about it.

There was a patch today that did very little, just some quest bug fixes.  It seems like they are saving most of the changes for the Craglorn content patch.  This is a pretty bad idea because now a lot of fixes are attached to something which might be delayed over and over again.

I'm dreading Craglorn because it will nerf my hirelings and my Bash ability.  This game's group content is pretty terrible and very buggy so I don't see anything to look forward to either, since it's all group focused.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 14, 2014, 02:10:26 PM
Right now I'm playing AA because even though combat is terrible

How terrible? :X

It's just standard hotbar/tab target combat. I think it's shitty. A lot of people like it though.

I thought AA had some physics involved in projectiles? No? :(

You just like giving people flack.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on May 14, 2014, 02:57:25 PM
You know how I know you fucked up?

When ZAM launches a third-party AH for you. 

That's how.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 15, 2014, 07:59:08 AM
You know how I know you fucked up?

When ZAM launches a third-party AH for you. 

That's how.

What's it like?  And, yes, I agree.  I wonder how long it'll take for the GAME to agree.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on May 15, 2014, 09:30:39 AM
I didn't try it; only saw the headline. 

I'm not sure this game is salvageable.  The six month delay on the console version backs that up.  I want to like it because of the setting, but it's just not a very good game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Logain on May 15, 2014, 06:59:46 PM
This game fucking sucks. I sold my account. Just glad I could recoup some of the cost. Maybe this time I learned my lesson when it comes to pre-ordering MMOs. Probably not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 16, 2014, 08:06:23 AM
There's so much wrong with the game and not just the lack of an AH.  As much as I like some of the bits that are Elder Scrolls, such as being able to interact with so many items in the environment, I don't see it being worth a sub fee.  I don't even see it being worth my effort if it was ftp.  I would be too frustrated.  Any game that makes me frustrated even when I'm stoned and giggly will eventually kill me.  This game is in dire need of many many miracle patches. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 16, 2014, 08:23:19 AM
It just needs to be single player.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 16, 2014, 08:46:26 AM
It just needs to be single player.  :awesome_for_real:

So, your saying this is KOTOR?  :drill:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 16, 2014, 08:48:17 AM
I'd play TOR if it's Single Player.
Well, not exactly.
I tried playing the F2P. But the installer won't work.
Checked forum, turns out I need to unrar the thing manually - and seeing no developer/moderator response to the thread made me understand why I shouldn't care about this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2014, 10:48:34 AM
Er, what? The installer is just an .exe download.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 18, 2014, 12:15:42 PM
They just had a "forum update".  I still can't create an account or find where this mythical "activation code" is located.  I am still a paying subscriber, lol.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 18, 2014, 01:38:47 PM
I am still a paying subscriber
I think I've found the root cause of the problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on May 18, 2014, 08:07:58 PM
You know how I know you fucked up?

When ZAM launches a third-party AH for you. 
ESO runs on a megaserver architecture. Remember the lesson of Diablo 3 1.0. If you have your entire regional population in a single auction house, the market becomes extraordinarily efficient. Your currency inflates at a rapid pace, and you're forced to make strong bind on equip items much rarer, which makes playing the game (versus playing the auction house) less rewarding.

There are several ways around that, of course, including setting items bind on pickup/account/guild/friends, but commodities cannot be bound and retain a strong inflationary effect.

There are ways around that, too-- my favorite is to shard the auction house. The very first time your account uses the AH, you're assigned to a named shard that best matches your guildmates, friends, and those in the same timezone. Each shard contains a designated number of accounts, say 10k. If you want to switch AH shards for whatever reason, you can do it for free once per month.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 19, 2014, 02:15:43 AM
Er, what? The installer is just an .exe download.

Yeah I know, but when I run the installer, it'll finish real quick and just closes.
Five times tried. Same result.
I googled and stumbled on a thread where I have to unrar that thing etc.
I just can't be arsed, and the officials didn't seem to pitch in any ideas to fix it.
Fuck it, if they're apathetic about it, then so be it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 19, 2014, 05:38:50 AM
I am still a paying subscriber
I think I've found the root cause of the problem.

My wife is still playing.  Also, I actually find the PvP fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 19, 2014, 07:29:06 AM
There are ways around that, too-- my favorite is to shard the auction house. The very first time your account uses the AH, you're assigned to a named shard that best matches your guildmates, friends, and those in the same timezone. Each shard contains a designated number of accounts, say 10k. If you want to switch AH shards for whatever reason, you can do it for free once per month.
FFXI's is another way.  Let people designate the price they want to buy things for, and when someone sells it for that or under, the item gets sold at the buy price to the buyer that had the highest bid.

GW2's system is similar, but people know what they're selling it for ahead of time.  It's a small difference, but by having the seller be blind as to the current bids and a limited means they have to low-ball if they want it sold, making the FFXI system a bit better at controlling inflation from what I saw.  (No idea now, after so many years in service.  It certainly didn't find equilibrium quite so quickly though.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2014, 07:37:21 AM
The lack of an AH is going to be the albatross for them. I know why they didn't do it, but that wasn't the right conclusion to draw from prior games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on May 19, 2014, 08:20:44 AM
GW2 has a megaserver too, but their system doesn't control inflation.

http://gw2trading.net/report/inflation

The consignment system in FFXI is another totally valid approach, good call.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Count Nerfedalot on May 19, 2014, 01:06:35 PM
It seems to me like.meagserver vs multiple servers only accelerates rather than creating the problem? The root problem is insufficient sinks to balance the sources, be it gold, uber items, or crafting ingredients.

The issues with gear a la Diablo 3 may well be insurmountable though, although TESO's guild/community AH may well have been a good solution for D3, D3 wasn't a persistent world nor was it a crafting/economy game. So while it MIGHT have worked for D3, it was totally inadequate for TESO.

But a crafting economy's lifeblood is the ability to buy and sell resources and finished goods. Especially one with hundreds of resources and severely limited inventory, forcing you to behave like a just-in-time manufacturing entity, but with hundreds of thousands of competitors, no mechanisms for making or taking orders, no contract law, no way to differentiate yourself, and no way to communicate it even if you could.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 19, 2014, 03:29:25 PM
The lack of an AH is going to be the albatross for them. I know why they didn't do it, but that wasn't the right conclusion to draw from prior games.

Agreed.  To me, a AAA MMO must have some kind of AH and I don't mean Diablo.  It does annoy me with its absence and makes it easier to keep from buying the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 21, 2014, 07:13:05 PM
The Craglorn patch drops tomorrow.  Number of people at VR10 who would give a shit is maybe one percent of the population.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 21, 2014, 07:21:51 PM
Anyone make it past the first month?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 21, 2014, 08:16:29 PM
I didn't make it past early access.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 21, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
I didn't make it past beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shatter on May 22, 2014, 03:27:31 AM
I didn't make it past my credit card


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 22, 2014, 04:38:59 AM
I didn't make it past.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 22, 2014, 06:07:01 AM
Still playing.  I blame OCD.  Despite all the problems I would still be enjoying myself if they hadn't of made the veteran ranks so tedious by buffing all the mob's health pools.  I'm VR7 now and in the last faction's zones, which for me is Ebonheart.  I did not like the Aldmeri zones, they all looked the same and the quests were nowhere near as good as Daggerfall (I did like Raz though).  Ebonheart zones and quests are pretty great so far however.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on May 22, 2014, 07:26:00 AM
Still playing off and on as well. Then again, I'm on vacation, so I'm playing a bit of everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 22, 2014, 07:35:12 AM
Craglorn today, patch notes. (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/100211/patch-notes-v1-1-2)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 22, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
I come to this thread to feel better about myself  :awesome_for_real:

But in all seriousness, lots of respect for folks playing this. I don't get it, but that somebody does means they didn't do everything wrong...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 23, 2014, 03:10:33 AM
I'm still subbed, mostly because my wife is playing and going through content incredibly slow (she is level 40).  I unsubbed today though, this patch was an epic clusterfuck.

I'm not sure if you all are familiar with how they do "end game" content in this game, but basically you have "Veteran" ranks that level up very slowly and you go through a buffed up version of the other factions content.  This is kind of an annoying mcguffin, but I can see it as a way to experience other factions without re-rolling I suppose.  The content was relatively challenging for a novice but an experienced player shouldn't have many porblems except if they try to solo group content.

Today's patch:  All the good damage skills were nerfed, all VR (at least post VR3) mobs doubled in hit points and doubled in damage.  It is impossible to solo VR content (technically tou can but you are going to use a lot of consumables and are going to die constantly).  It's a totally unfun punch in the dick for no apparent reason and Zenimax has so far not made a statement on it.  People are going ballistic.  In AvA they also leveled the mobs to VR5 and they have the same problem, keep sieges are now more fighting off super buffed NPCs than players.  Clownshoes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 07:05:44 AM
Ah the first patch blues.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 23, 2014, 09:16:46 AM
Anyone make it past the first month?


this needs to be a poll, with options ranging from 1 hour to 1 day to 1 beta weekend to early access to 1 week to 1 month to Still Presently Subscribed But Intend To Unsub to Do Not Intend To Unsub yet


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on May 23, 2014, 09:57:16 AM
Shamefully, I bought the game but never bothered to play after headstart.

Can anyone beat that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 09:57:51 AM
Shamefully, I bought the game but never bothered to play after headstart.

Can anyone beat that?

You are their target market.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on May 23, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
I dunno, you'd think they want a couple months of subscriptions out of their players.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 11:02:02 AM
I dunno, you'd think they want a couple months of subscriptions out of their players.

Sure but that's gravy. The whole plan here in my mind was to sell as many boxes as fast as they could before the information hit the open market. If they could lock in subs as well with discounts for long term? All the better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on May 23, 2014, 11:03:01 AM
This.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 23, 2014, 11:15:48 AM
I'm still subbed, mostly because my wife is playing and going through content incredibly slow (she is level 40).  I unsubbed today though, this patch was an epic clusterfuck.
Holy shit this is terrible.  I go to see for myself if the veteran rank stuff, which is already tedious due to large mob health pools, did in fact become unplayable due to more mob buffs.  It has!  Combined with a nerf to bash damage I'm completely useless now, unless I want blow ten potions and rezz gems an hour I can't play.  Idiots.  Who the fuck is testing on their test realm if they didn't notice a %100 buff to all the fucking mobs in the VR zones?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 23, 2014, 11:30:28 AM
Even their official forums, which you can't register to post on, which is filled with mostly sycophants, is freaking out about how terrible this patch is.

I dunno, you'd think they want a couple months of subscriptions out of their players.

Sure but that's gravy. The whole plan here in my mind was to sell as many boxes as fast as they could before the information hit the open market. If they could lock in subs as well with discounts for long term? All the better.
I'm all for being critical of their mistakes but as the old saying goes "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  If they just wanted to bilk people of the box cost they wouldn't of bothered to develop this crappy patch which is all about endgame group content.  They also wouldn't have spent such an incredible amount of money making this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on May 23, 2014, 12:45:25 PM
The whole VR mobs boost thing was another fuck up on their part, so they're going to be fixing that. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/880134/#Comment_880134

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not playable, but it's annoyingly tedious now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 01:15:18 PM
'm all for being critical of their mistakes but as the old saying goes "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  If they just wanted to bilk people of the box cost they wouldn't of bothered to develop this crappy patch which is all about endgame group content.  They also wouldn't have spent such an incredible amount of money making this game.

The patch was already in the pipeline. It was probably supposed to be for release and didn't make it out the door, which is why it's a shitshow now.

As to the second part, that's exactly my point. They spent a ton on this game, and they knew about 2 years ago this wasn't going to meet expectations in the marketplace. Why do you think they've released no news at all? At this point, even if the game was remotely successful, they'd be blaring release numbers, sub numbers, and anything they can do to entice users. They haven't done that at all.

In fact the only thing they have done is moved back the console release, which I don't believe actually even releases now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 23, 2014, 01:21:13 PM
Oh so you think it could at least be used as an accounting measure to write off the investment for the parent company?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 23, 2014, 01:48:37 PM
The whole VR mobs boost thing was another fuck up on their part, so they're going to be fixing that. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/880134/#Comment_880134

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not playable, but it's annoyingly tedious now.
I wonder if this is true, or just bullshit trotted out in response to the massive negative reaction.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 01:53:02 PM
Oh so you think it could at least be used as an accounting measure to write off the investment for the parent company?

Basically yes, that's why it was created as a subsidiary in the first place. To insulate the parent from the investment.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 23, 2014, 02:09:40 PM
I'm all for being critical of their mistakes but as the old saying goes "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".  If they just wanted to bilk people of the box cost they wouldn't of bothered to develop this crappy patch which is all about endgame group content.  They also wouldn't have spent such an incredible amount of money making this game.

Thanks. Couldn't remember the exact quote but have wanted to sig for awhile :-)

Accounting trick or not, I think it's highly unlikely they knew how bad this would be two years ago. Because two years ago they could still have done some substantial things to correct the course. Not change the entire premise of course. But at least change acknowledge the onboarding experience, and work through the mismatching expectations between a Skyrim-like experience and a DAoC-one.

So I'm leaning towards they didn't know better either due to some kool aid drinking or just straight up ignorance. Just because this genre has a lot of history doesn't mean the people working in it understand it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: zumu on May 23, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
I wonder if this is true, or just bullshit trotted out in response to the massive negative reaction.

Bullshit or not, they are intending on fixing it within the next 24 hours. I'd say that's pretty good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shatter on May 23, 2014, 03:02:37 PM
7 weeks out and its already 35% off, is that bad?

http://www.amazon.com/Elder-Scrolls-Online-PC/dp/B0081Q58AW/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1400880024&sr=1-1&keywords=elder+scroll+online



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 23, 2014, 03:11:02 PM
The Amazon 5 star reviews are peppered with people that aren't verified and have one review. Or have several reviews about shitty games that are all 5 stars. Hmmm.

Heh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 23, 2014, 03:27:14 PM
The whole VR mobs boost thing was another fuck up on their part, so they're going to be fixing that. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/880134/#Comment_880134

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not playable, but it's annoyingly tedious now.
I wonder if this is true, or just bullshit trotted out in response to the massive negative reaction.

I don't normally go in for conspiracy theories, but I'm with you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on May 23, 2014, 03:36:11 PM
The whole VR mobs boost thing was another fuck up on their part, so they're going to be fixing that. http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/880134/#Comment_880134

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not playable, but it's annoyingly tedious now.
I wonder if this is true, or just bullshit trotted out in response to the massive negative reaction.

I don't normally go in for conspiracy theories, but I'm with you.

Maybe they were testing the waters. But I don't know, that was a rather large change. A good 50% health increase on veteran rank mobs, and damage increase (not sure how much) seems like that would warrant some documentation. I know people complain about VR content, I'm one of them, but I don't believe it's entirely about mob 'difficulty'.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 23, 2014, 08:02:17 PM
The alternative is they're as incompetent as the MWO devs.  Take your pick, it's not good for the future of the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 24, 2014, 01:36:38 AM
Yeah, that's what I was going to say - they're either lying cowards or honest morons. Take your pick!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on May 24, 2014, 07:48:57 AM
When I played the beta, everything about the game screamed 'well meaning amateurs' to me so I'd lean towards honest morons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on May 24, 2014, 12:51:45 PM
Jester made one of his rare non-EVE posts today, mentioning that "many" players have had their quest journals rendered unusable by the patch.

Can anyone actually confirm that?

http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2014/05/this-is-why-we-test.html


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 24, 2014, 01:52:16 PM
The quest journal is usable what he is saying is all the achievements for quests have gone poof, which is correct.  They claim it is a display bug, it might be.  It was a 3GB patch but it is fragile and if it errors out you have to redownload the entire damn client which is the 25GB he was talking about.

I hate achievements anyways, terrible psychological warfare is what they are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 24, 2014, 08:17:44 PM
Yeah, but without them why would anyone remain playing?  Achievers use those as a "this is worth it" currency, even if they are meaningless.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 25, 2014, 12:26:09 PM
Hehe here's a good one.  So they put in a hotfix to undo the bug where all mobs were 100% stronger than they were supposed to be right?  People go out and try again and still get annihilated if they are solo.  Turns out the fix doesn't affect any of the mobs that have already spawned.  You have to kill them first (which you can't do solo) and then only after they respawn will it be fixed.  So the whole weekend if you were trying to quest you might meet mobs that were normal because a group killed them but then if you go off the beaten path you will meet mobs that are still buffed and die.

An interesting mitigation to this nonsense is that they, predictably, missed several ways to get far more xp than they probably intended in the new content, so most people who were in the veteran zones just went there and ground out levels much more quickly than possible normally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on May 25, 2014, 07:02:07 PM
Can't they just ... reboot the servers....

lol


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 26, 2014, 01:48:20 AM
Shutting them down would probably be a better idea at this point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 26, 2014, 06:41:37 AM
Shutting them down would probably be a better idea at this point.
No net yet I still have four zones of quests to get through!

They are rebooting the servers today.  They have also started patching out the methods where people were getting very good xp by grinding certain aspects of the new content.  I went from VR7 to VR11 in a couple days even though I didn't really grind much on the second.  To put that in perspective it took me probably three weeks to get from VR1 to VR7 via questing.  Current max is VR12 so I really hope there will still be a way to grind that out because then I can go craft my legendary armor making the last four zones I want to quest through less tedious from a mob killing perspective.

I think I've decided to just go down with this ship.  All mmos suck so why not just stick with a pretty one where I've already done a bunch of stuff.  Embrace the sunken cost fallacy.  Out of 13 people in our small family guild (which I am unfortunately the guild leader for since all of us know how much it doing it sucks and I drew the short straw) it's only me and one other person who still log in much.  The other person is from f13 who hasn't posted in three years so I don't really know them :).

Edit: Actually now that I think of it if any of you are quiting anyways could you do me a favor and join my guild so we can try to keep bank access (you need 10 people but so far unsubscribed people still count).  I think you can invite offline so just send an ingame mail to @Stopgap, or PM me here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on May 26, 2014, 08:32:04 AM
Hehe here's a good one.  So they put in a hotfix to undo the bug where all mobs were 100% stronger than they were supposed to be right?  People go out and try again and still get annihilated if they are solo.  Turns out the fix doesn't affect any of the mobs that have already spawned.  You have to kill them first (which you can't do solo) and then only after they respawn will it be fixed.  So the whole weekend if you were trying to quest you might meet mobs that were normal because a group killed them but then if you go off the beaten path you will meet mobs that are still buffed and die.

An interesting mitigation to this nonsense is that they, predictably, missed several ways to get far more xp than they probably intended in the new content, so most people who were in the veteran zones just went there and ground out levels much more quickly than possible normally.


I sort of like that bug, where the more remote monsters are lethal. Stray off the beaten path will you!  :why_so_serious:

Reminds me of when in DaoC, every Hib learned the importance of a the presence of a letter H in Pooka's.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 28, 2014, 09:07:27 AM
I think I've decided to just go down with this ship.

Patch Notes 6/1 — Deck chair arrangement on the lito and quarter decks has been reoptimized. Passengers complaining of enhancing degree of tilt will find that the positioning of the chair legs allows for more stable grip along the wooden planks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 28, 2014, 09:59:47 AM
Got max level and crafted my nice set of armor.  It was kind of disappointing.  I wear heavy armor (more on that next) and like two styles the most - Breton and Daedric.  They changed all the colors with the craglorn patch (most of the veteran armor was all plain before that since they obviously ran out of time to dye it) and my Breton set has this weird blotchyness (http://eso-fashion.com/breton-voidsteel/) all over and a color I don't much care for.  The Daedric was looking okay until I upgraded it to purple (epic) quality, then half of it took on this ugly flesh tone (http://eso-fashion.com/daedric-voidsteel/).

Also found out that to upgrade it to legendary takes eight very expensive components per piece instead of the five I was expecting.

I won't bore you with a detailed explanation of the mechanics but as an added let down currently the best armor in the game is light (cloth).  If you want to min/max you wear light armor, in any role.  Tanks should wear light, dps should wear light and of course casters should wear light.  I don't want to wear light since I am a melee focused knight so I'm not going to, even though it will make things more difficult for me.

In PvP if you aren't in the veteran ranks you get boosted to level 50, which is good idea but they are still at a pretty big disadvantage to maxed out veterans.  Now they made it even worse by making all of the npcs in PvP veteran rank 5, they used to be level 50.  The difference between a level 50 player and a vr5 player is moderate but mobs get hugely more powerful along that same level range.  So now you basically have to be a veteran to kill the PvE mobs in the PvP zone.  There is no way to gain xp in PvP that wouldn't take years of playing to get that high.  They also bugged an ability that makes all siege weapons useless.

The veteran rank zones are empty as everyone tries to grind out xp in craglorn before they shut down the best methods.  They stopped one method of farming xp by intentionally bugging a dungeon boss...  Now when he spawns he just unspawns a few seconds later.

I don't know if I should keep posting about this game's wacky missteps or just let this thread die, only to be resurrected with the free to play announcement at some point in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 28, 2014, 10:16:21 AM
No, if you're involved keep us updated. It's good information.

Why is light armor the best armor for tanks? Are they tanking in robes? How did that work out mechanically?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 28, 2014, 10:55:52 AM
It's all about mana regeneration. You can easily cap out in armor/magic resist through class abilities. For a game that has a pretty awesome class system, their stat system is shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 28, 2014, 10:59:27 AM
What Draegan said.  Here is the anti tl;dr version, it's complicated. Just badly thought out mechanics and gear design basically.

They use softcaps for almost all stats, including armor.  It gets a little easier to reach these soft caps each level.  At max level you get purple drops and are willing to spend money on good enchants for that gear.  Most classes also have some sort of "buff your armor and spell resist for twenty seconds" type ability.  The only stat benefit heavy armor has is higher armor rating.  But due to any combination of the above it is possible to hit (or get get close enough to) the armor softcap by wearing light - either you buff yourself with your resist spell or you enchant your gear with +armor.  Anyone in the party can also throw down a circle that gives a big boost to armor.

Everyone has two resource pools, magicka and stamina.  Your class abilities use magicka, most weapon abilities use stamina (staffs don't).  All magicka based abilities do more damage than weapon abilities, this is just the way they designed it.  I imagine they wanted your class defining skills to be better than a weapon which anyone can use.  Tanks need to reserve their stamina to block with, to roll out of the way and to interrupt so they shouldn't really be burning it on doing damage. 

There is no concept of strength agility and so on, the only stat diffence between light, medium and heavy is the amount of armor on each.  You can buy passive skills for each type of armor and that's what makes them different.  Light's skills are great and magicka based.  Big reduction in costs, faster regen, makes class abilities hit harder.  Heavy armor passives suck.  The bonuses add more armor (which is probably already capped), gives a pathetic increase to your white damage and a tiny increase to healing received.  One of light's passives even increases spell resist four times stronger than heavy's passive and most boss damage counts as spell.

And then for dps, since magicka does more damage than stamina, they can do more damage if they have a lot of magicka to spend.  So even though there is a medium armor line with crit and stamina bonuses they get more out of light armor because they can spam their class abilities.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on May 28, 2014, 12:08:59 PM
Grats on V12. It's hard for me to muster the will to grind out the quick leveling via Craglorn. My friend's are pretty much gone once Wildstar's released, so I think I may just go through the rest of the VR Ebonheart Pact zones and see how I feel after that.

Also, I remember hearing that heavy armor was going to get a new passive that increased ultimate gain, but I'm still not sure if that would make it more worthwhile than using light. I still use heavy since I solo most of the time and like the looks of it more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 28, 2014, 12:19:54 PM
Wasn't "light armor is as strong as heavy armor and has fewer penalties" a solved problem back in Oblivion nearly a decade ago?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 28, 2014, 12:30:06 PM
Also, I remember hearing that heavy armor was going to get a new passive that increased ultimate gain, but I'm still not sure if that would make it more worthwhile than using light. I still use heavy since I solo most of the time and like the looks of it more.

no appearance tabs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 28, 2014, 12:31:27 PM
I've been tanking trials (raids) and 5 piece heavy armor is useful there because of the block reduction, as a tank you will be blocking a lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 28, 2014, 12:31:52 PM
no appearance tabs?

This is a game with no auction house and a dev team that managed to erase a bunch of toons with no way to restore them.  Now you want appearance tabs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 28, 2014, 12:52:09 PM
There are vague promises of a dye system so we can change the horrible color at some point in the distant future.

Certainly no appearance tab.  There is a 'disguise' item that you are supposed to use for quests but some people intentionally keep the disguise and leave the quest incomplete.

There are nine tiers of armor, each race has a different stlye but the last five tiers of each race have the exact same graphic and only differ by color.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 28, 2014, 01:30:32 PM
It's a new game and there are still places where your character can get stuck in the geometry right?  So you have to use the /stuck command to kill yourself and go back to the nearest safe area.

Using /stuck now costs gold :awesome_for_real:.  If you get stuck in the geometry you have to pay for the privilege of killing yourself.  Theory is the hordes of bots that the game is plagued with in low level zones (because they didn't bother to put in any systems to combat them) was using /stuck to bot faster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 28, 2014, 02:07:32 PM
Using /stuck now costs gold :awesome_for_real:.  If you get stuck in the geometry you have to pay for the privilege of killing yourself.  Theory is the hordes of bots that the game is plagued with in low level zones (because they didn't bother to put in any systems to combat them) was using /stuck to bot faster.

ESO is the gift that keeps on giving.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on May 28, 2014, 02:09:24 PM
you have to pay for the privilege of killing yourself.

I haven't had this much schadenfreude reading about a game since AoC, thanks  :drill:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 28, 2014, 02:11:08 PM
It's a new game and there are still places where your character can get stuck in the geometry right?  So you have to use the /stuck command to kill yourself and go back to the nearest safe area.

Using /stuck now costs gold :awesome_for_real:.  If you get stuck in the geometry you have to pay for the privilege of killing yourself.  Theory is the hordes of bots that the game is plagued with in low level zones (because they didn't bother to put in any systems to combat them) was using /stuck to bot faster.

That's amazing. This is why you shouldn't stop posting about this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on May 28, 2014, 03:03:29 PM
you have to pay for the privilege of killing yourself.

I haven't had this much schadenfreude reading about a game since AoC, thanks  :drill:

This. I was curious to play this at some point but thought better of it. I will give it a go when it is F2P but I doubt I will play for very long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 28, 2014, 04:18:07 PM
I am far more interested in the comments from people willing to slog through this mess than I ever was about the game itself. At least they can climb high brand awareness*

* Assuming they don't mind the quality of that awareness  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on May 28, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
This is why we still bother to even have the mmog forum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 28, 2014, 05:34:05 PM
This is why we still bother to even have the mmog forum.

It's making me glad that I decided to pass on ESO in favor of Wildstar.  Wildstar has its own problems, but nothing even close to what I saw in this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 29, 2014, 07:46:03 AM
I played for a few weeks. I enjoyed the solo play and the class system. I got my money's worth I think.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on May 29, 2014, 08:06:20 AM
no appearance tabs?

This is a game with no auction house and a dev team that managed to erase a bunch of toons with no way to restore them.  Now you want appearance tabs?

yes. i .. i .. do. i want a future where people who have been given seven years and $asmallcountry'sGDP to make a video game knows the super basic things you have to have in those types of video games for those video games to succeed. i want a world where competency in MMO making is not some sort of Star League lostech buried in the darkest recesses of the faraway worm-eaten land of Azeroth and unknown to modern times — bemoaned as a fairytale and nary but whispered about in dark taverns. The sheriff of Nottingham is back again going "oy, ay? Stuck in the geometry are ye? That'll be five pence, working as intended." and there's no robin hoooooood


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on May 29, 2014, 10:40:26 AM
I'm on board with the Protoss.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 29, 2014, 11:02:33 AM
I just want them to realize this was awful, shut the whole thing down, retool it and release it simultaneously with the console release.

Then I win $20.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 29, 2014, 12:07:10 PM
Out of curiosity when FFIXVIXVII whatever did that was there a character wipe or were people who had a bunch of levels and gold allowed to retain it after the re-launch?

Because that's what this game needs.  Shut it down, fix the core systems, fix the bugs, add the critical systems that are missing and then try again in another year.  The zones, quests, atmosphere, characters and dialogue are amazing but you have to put with seven different layers of shit while trying to enjoy them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 29, 2014, 12:53:02 PM
There were no character wipes with FFXIV, they retained their class levels, and they got to keep at least a certain amount of money with the relaunch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on May 29, 2014, 12:59:19 PM
Were they ever able to kill that ladybug?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 29, 2014, 01:57:32 PM
Out of curiosity when FFIXVIXVII whatever did that was there a character wipe or were people who had a bunch of levels and gold allowed to retain it after the re-launch?

Because that's what this game needs.  Shut it down, fix the core systems, fix the bugs, add the critical systems that are missing and then try again in another year.  The zones, quests, atmosphere, characters and dialogue are amazing but you have to put with seven different layers of shit while trying to enjoy them.
There were two sets of servers for FFXIV:ARR's launch: legacy servers which let people keep their old toons, and non-legacy servers so people could rush to cap in a fresh environment.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 29, 2014, 02:10:37 PM
I think shutting this down and starting over is the best thing for the game.



And my wallet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 29, 2014, 04:53:53 PM
This is why we still bother to even have the mmog forum.

It's making me glad that I decided to pass on ESO in favor of Wildstar.  Wildstar has its own problems, but nothing even close to what I saw in this game.
Wildstar's going to be the opposite of this. TESO was an obvious trainwreck waiting to happen and the only surprise was that fake-Zenimax managed to scrape it into even vaguely almost-viable status later in the beta. Wildstar's polished like nothing outside of Blizzard, but they've got some really dumb design decisions (difficulty wall, TBC-like attunement chains, grind AAs for gear, and so on) hidden away in the tall grass.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 29, 2014, 05:57:29 PM
Fortunately it's easier to dial-back cockstabby design decisions than blatant incompetence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on May 30, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
Fortunately it's easier to dial-back cockstabby design decisions than blatant incompetence.

ESO has plenty of cock-stabby design decisions, they are just buried under all the blatant incompetence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2014, 07:15:15 AM
Grinding AAs for gear? The only cockstabbing in this game is raiding. The rest of the game is pretty casual in almost every way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on May 30, 2014, 07:23:48 AM
They announced a Euro maintenance yesterday that was scheduled for their low pop time.  That's fine.  The euro maintenance window opened up and... all the NA players got kicked in late NA prime time.

They started shutting down the wrong megaserver before realizing what the fuck they were doing...

Grinding AAs for gear? The only cockstabbing in this game is raiding. The rest of the game is pretty casual in almost every way.
I am fairly good at MMOs, am VR12, have all purple gear, a legendary weapon and I can not do the content in the VR10 zone because three packs have a 50/50 chance of killing me.  Same with the bosses in 'solo' dungeons.  If a boss summons adds I'm totally fucked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2014, 08:16:07 AM
I thought I was in the Wildstar thread when I made that reply. Sorry!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on May 30, 2014, 08:18:37 AM
I thought I was in the Wildstar thread when I made that reply. Sorry!

You should ask someone to check your pupils, just in case....


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on May 30, 2014, 08:21:00 AM
Wildstar has so many bad design decisions I wouldn't be surprised if it shed subscribers faster than ESO.

It's also fun to watch these companies to make the same exact mistakes that we saw in UO, only 15 years later.

Enjoy your ESO firesuits, boys! I'm sure you'll figure out instahits before too long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on May 30, 2014, 08:27:22 AM
Wildstar has so many bad design decisions I wouldn't be surprised if it shed subscribers faster than ESO.

They weren't obvious to me.  Care to elaborate?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2014, 09:10:34 AM
It's probably going to be some diatribe on how he can't do raids because 40 man. The game is incredibly well built, my one major issue with the game, from a design point of view, is the poorly designed classes. The combat system is a personal preference kind of thing and I don't really like it as a whole.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 30, 2014, 09:29:56 AM
Quote
"Zenimax secretly added a 1.1 second Cooldown to all melee skill attacks. IF you use any melee skill attack you can not use another one until after 1.1 seconds. Before the patch it was .6 seconds between melee skill attacks."

This makes combat even less fun.
On top of that, it doesn't apply to magic, and magic is already overpowered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on May 30, 2014, 11:38:34 AM
Diatribe, hah! I wish I cared enough to put that much into this. I'll keep it short and sweet because everyone here is smart enough to read between the lines - no matter how poorly written. (it's poorly written, because I'm writing it.)

The game systems you interact with the most are in a very strange place between being a strict tab-target traditional MMO and an action-RPG/MMO thing. Being in the middle, there are pitfalls all over the place that you'll encounter. Some classes encounter more of them than others.

The difficulty. They can't maintain a healthy enough population with the current difficulty of the things people want to do in the game. Within the first, I'd guess, 2 months you'll see some crazy threads and devs come out saying that they'll start rebalancing or changing things or creating alternate paths that appeal to enough people to make this thing enough of a financial success to continue active post-launch development.

So it's going to be this strange to play thing that's going to change a lot in a short amount of time. Development time to fix things or add content will be spent altering existing content and adding additional bugs.

You'll have a player caste system quickly show up and second and third class citizens will develop in every guild.

Nobody (the greater "nobody" - first class citizens in their own world will be perfectly happy as the empire crumbles) will be happy and you'll see huge population problems at an ESO-pace. (or even faster.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 30, 2014, 12:41:05 PM
Agree on the tab targeting; however, my limited experience felt more like GW2 with more obvious range/cone/ground targeting overlays. I didn't play long enough to see flaws, and avoided some of the classes that people complained about being stationary/slow.

But on the dificulty: would you say it's difficulty everyone will run into (i.e., Crushbone/Blackburrow: it sucked equally for all of us)? Or is it difficulty only certain players will run into (i.e., only if you try to level up in PvP whereas in PvE it's just relegated to group-only content)?

And yes, I'm furthering the WS derail in the ESO thread. It's a more interesting topic and I can't move the conversation :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 03, 2014, 07:25:58 AM
There are a couple abilities that can give you soul gems or a buff if they kill your target.  There are level one critters that can be one-shot with any mild ability.  Yes, you could kill critters to get the bonuses because they didn't bother to differentiate between them and real mobs.

So they got around to trying to fix that, but in a terribly hacky way.  Now if your cursor is on any critter all your abilities go gray and can't be used.  This also means that if you are fighting a boss in a maggot filled crypt and a maggot crosses the path of your cursor, all your abilities stop working.  You can't even use healing spells if a spider/snake/squirrel walks across the path of your cursor.

Just incredible.  Instead of making changes to the two or three spells and adding an if-not-critter statement they wholesale disabled all abilities if your cursor is over a critter, which happens a fair bit, especially in dungeons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 03, 2014, 09:33:21 AM
This is the game that keeps on giving. ;D


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on June 03, 2014, 10:39:56 AM
They just made critters meaningful content!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on June 03, 2014, 11:11:43 AM
Can you kill the critters with ground target aoe? Is that now a part of raiding?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on June 03, 2014, 11:19:13 AM
if a critter gets you stuck is the option to pay to kill yourself with the /stuck command greyed out?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 03, 2014, 11:43:11 AM
if a critter gets you stuck is the option to pay to kill yourself with the /stuck command greyed out?
You joke but three times over the weekend I was stuck after porting into a city because there is a bug where some vanity pets have collision detection turned on.  So if asshole with a pet ports to a city and just stands there the pet just stands under them, then you port in and since you are now standing inside the God damn pet you can't move because collision detection is turned on and any way you try to move the idiotic client thinks a crab/monkey/whatever is in your way.  I log out/in or port again so that I don't have to pay the /stuck fee.

You wind up with a stack of people flailing around on the exact same spot trying to move and no one can do anything but rotate.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on June 03, 2014, 11:46:31 AM
Next thing you know you're gonna have to pay for your miracle patch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 03, 2014, 11:54:22 AM
There's a stuck 'fee'?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 03, 2014, 12:04:40 PM
Supposedly to stop some botting exploit or something, yeah. I guess it isn't the worst implementation of /stuck ever (games that reset your fast travel timer to do it come to mind), but it's still a pretty obnoxious thing to do to a player who's already inclined to be pissed off due to getting stuck in your crappy geography or whatever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on June 04, 2014, 03:50:56 AM
.... Critter armour!!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 04, 2014, 11:36:13 AM
.... Critter armour!!

(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111122199/3332515-squirrel_girl_defeats_wolverine__by_howard_beale-d4hluur.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 05, 2014, 06:32:02 AM
Someone made a troll bait thread on the official forums titled "What would you like to see in the upcoming f2p system?".  Rather than just lock or delete it (which to their credit they rarely do) the mods changed the title to "What would you like to see if ESO goes f2p?".  Innocent edit by an easy going mod or deliberate attempt to test the waters in a round about way?  You decide!

Edit: Oh, and a new 'road ahead' update. (http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2014/06/04/the-road-ahead--june-4th)
Edit2: I guess the mod changed it to 'if' and then the op changed it to 'if/when'.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 10, 2014, 11:38:51 AM
Odd story about layoffs. (http://connachttribune.ie/galway-jobs-blow-300-gone-software-firm/)  I'm guessing they were hired in a rush at launch because they underestimated how many support tickets they would have to deal with (caused by bugs and bots).  Then so many people cancelled that they were no longer needed...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on June 10, 2014, 02:16:10 PM
Well, no one expected the game to crash and burn and OH WAIT this entire website did.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoth on June 10, 2014, 03:27:12 PM
Well, no one expected the game to crash and burn and OH WAIT this entire website did.

To be fair, crashing and burning is what's expected from every mmo according to f13. People can only be heartbroken this many times before they become cynics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wizgar on June 10, 2014, 03:59:28 PM
To be fair, crashing and burning is what's expected from every mmo according to...

...everyone who isn't actively working on one, and probably most of those who are if you could get their honest opinions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 11, 2014, 06:48:17 AM
I had fun with the game for a few weeks. It's no where near sub worthy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 11, 2014, 10:15:01 AM
A post fit for most mmos.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 11, 2014, 08:00:17 PM
To be fair, crashing and burning is what's expected from every mmo according to f13. People can only be heartbroken this many times before they become cynics.

This was a unique scenario. This game was obviously a disaster from the word go. People around here may not like Wildstar, but you're going to find very few that think it is going to crash and burn like this TESO project.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soulflame on June 11, 2014, 09:45:17 PM
You can unlock Animal Crossing in Wildstar.  That's incredible.  Bosses drop furniture.  GENIUS.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 12, 2014, 12:10:20 PM
To be fair, crashing and burning is what's expected from every mmo according to f13. People can only be heartbroken this many times before they become cynics.

This was a unique scenario. This game was obviously a disaster from the word go. People around here may not like Wildstar, but you're going to find very few that think it is going to crash and burn like this TESO project.

I think wildstar will crash and burn if they stick to their focus on the hardcore/raider playerbase, but as long as they can admit they were wrong that is something they can easily change.  TESO was irredeemably fucked from the start and only some early hopes for the pvp got it any positive word of mouth at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 13, 2014, 03:29:56 PM
Well, no one expected the game to crash and burn and OH WAIT this entire website did.

To be fair, crashing and burning is what's expected from every mmo according to f13.

Nah. There's always going to be a handful of vigorous defenders that ensure we don't entirely dismiss all MMOs :-)

What's different about TESO is that nobody defended it, thinking it had a shot "as long as they did X...". The best thing written was by a few who said it wasn't the worst experience they had for the few weeks they put in.

That's been the theme of this thread almost since the first day it was announced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 13, 2014, 03:56:51 PM
I am almost tempted to believe the conspiracy theory that the PC launch was just a live beta for consoles.  I mean it is painfully obvious that a huge number of people have canceled because the veteran ranks suck but they have barely mentioned fixing it.  They are nerfing classes like there is no tomorrow but are "being very careful" about buffing classes that most everyone agrees need help.  There are obvious problems with their skill system.  There are core systems that just don't work or don't even exist.

It is really hard to believe that anyone could be this incompetent or out of touch...

All they would have to do to stop people from canceling and to bring some back is announce that "all veteran rank mobs health and attack stats have been cut in half".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 13, 2014, 09:19:18 PM
The conspiracy theory goes way deeper than just being a beta for consoles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 14, 2014, 01:37:28 AM
It is really hard to believe that anyone could be this incompetent or out of touch...
On the other hand: the entire history of MMO development.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on June 25, 2014, 08:50:59 AM
The new Ultima is going to awesome though, right?  RIGHT??? 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on June 25, 2014, 09:39:03 AM


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 25, 2014, 10:37:14 AM
http://gamingbolt.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-interview-business-model-is-what-the-business-model-is

That interview really reinforces my belief that the console version is never getting released.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on June 25, 2014, 10:58:38 AM
http://gamingbolt.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-interview-business-model-is-what-the-business-model-is

That interview really reinforces my belief that the console version is never getting released.

Does he know how horrible that came out? I mean, if that was my boss, I'd stop working and start emailing my resume.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 25, 2014, 11:05:35 AM
They have absolutely no idea how badly that looked, no. Because these people shouldn't be running a taco stand, let alone a million dollar gaming project.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on June 25, 2014, 02:56:40 PM
Does he know how horrible that came out? I mean, if that was my boss, I'd stop working and start emailing my resume.

That guy gets around. I think he has worked on just about every failed mmo developed in Austin.  I guess he is sowing the seeds of failure on the east coast now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on June 25, 2014, 03:31:45 PM
http://gamingbolt.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-interview-business-model-is-what-the-business-model-is

That interview really reinforces my belief that the console version is never getting released.

Does he know how horrible that came out? I mean, if that was my boss, I'd stop working and start emailing my resume.


Best part:
Quote
You know the business model is what the business model is and it allows us to deliver high level content on regular basis right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on June 25, 2014, 04:42:38 PM
So, you know, I couldn't tell what was more annoying. You know, whether it was the freakin' flyover pop-in ads on that stupid site, or, you know, the lack of any information at all or, you know, the valley girl style of talk. So please go try their game. You know, so maybe they'll someday consider doing, uh, the console something.

Not sure if I should blame lack of media training, or if their creative director actually does lack the clarity of vision he didn't convey in the interview.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 25, 2014, 06:51:38 PM
It was a terrible interview.  The guy asking the questions was even worse than the guy answering.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 25, 2014, 08:10:21 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/829607/daily/50/zenymax.png)

I hear the dungeon is pretty great folks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLBHjwCw088#t=385)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on June 26, 2014, 02:50:00 AM
Oh wow, that dungeon video is a real eye-opener.  WTF is wrong with these devs?  You kick someone from your group and they stay in your instance AND you can't recruit a replacement?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on June 26, 2014, 04:47:15 AM
Back when I had people to play with their grouping system was probably the buggiest pos I've ever seen.  At least half the time it would just forget who was leader, so no one else could be invited.  It thinks people are offline who are standing right in front of you, it won't put them in the same instance so you just see a floating icon moving around where they are supposed to be.  You won't always get loot from a boss.  The better loot is bind on pickup but there is no system to trade those bop items between your group members for an hour or so like WoW, since there are so many items with so many traits this means you rarely get what you want.  Bosses drop a whopping eight or so gold, to put that in perspective it costs 250 gold to feed your horse each day.

There has been a bug since launch which they only managed to fix (or claimed to) Tuesday where if you were in a raid group and invited someone in a different zone it would crash about five random people's clients.  You would just see the new person join and then bam five people were offline (or your client froze up if you were one of the five).  Groups of more than 16 cause some sort of memory leak that will start to crash raid member's clients.

In other news, the game already has an issue with too many useless items and limited inventory space right?  So what did they decide to do for no apparent reason whatsoever?  They have put entirely worthless (sell for 0g, have terrible stats so you would never equip them) weapons in the thousands of dressers, nightstands etc.  It's just insane and baffling.  If you go through an inn opening everything you wind up with dozens of items that are literally nothing but garbage you have to destroy or 'sell' for 0g.

They also delete all add-on saved variables each major patch it seems.  So all your settings, placements and preferences go poof and you have to do it over again.  Since the default UI is garbage the add-ons are pretty important.  They also made us agree to an entirely seperate terms of service just for third party add-ons if we have any installed...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 26, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
Leave Ordinary MMOs behind, the Alpaca says..  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 01, 2014, 06:37:40 AM
So this says sponsored (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgowBLb4sKw) and it must have been done with Bethesdas' help.  So I guess you can pay the onion to make fun of your product?  I must be out of the loop, I wonder how long that's been going on.

I sorta stopped going to the onion a couple years ago after the paywall went up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 03, 2014, 06:07:46 PM
They are finally going to nerf the veteran zones.  I don't know why it took them so long, it's like a mass exodus once people hit VR1.  They are going to make more changes to improve the veteran levels as well and will talk about them at QuakeCon.  Bethesda owns ID software and Quake in case your first question is "QuakeCon?".

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/117132/veteran-system-changes-preview

I will finally get to go back to questing, I've been waiting on this inevitability for weeks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on July 03, 2014, 07:10:24 PM
So this says sponsored (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgowBLb4sKw) and it must have been done with Bethesdas' help.  So I guess you can pay the onion to make fun of your product?  I must be out of the loop, I wonder how long that's been going on.

I sorta stopped going to the onion a couple years ago after the paywall went up.

The onion doesn't have a paywall, never did as far as i know.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 04, 2014, 04:05:17 AM
Hmm, I guess they are just experimenting on us filthy foreigners.
Quote
In August 2011, The Onion's website began testing a paywall model requiring a $2.95 monthly or $29.95 annual charge from non-U.S. visitors who want to read more than about five stories within 30 days. "We are testing a meter internationally as readers in those markets are already used to paying directly for some (other) content, particularly in the UK where we have many readers," said Onion, Inc. chief technology officer Michael Greer.
They started doing it to Canada sometime last year.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on July 04, 2014, 07:54:08 AM
Yeah, I've been seeing the paywall for a few years now. Its why I don't go to the Onion anymore, though I love their humour.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on July 04, 2014, 10:02:30 AM
That's horrible, i hope they never try that here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shatter on July 04, 2014, 11:12:54 AM
They are finally going to nerf the veteran zones.  I don't know why it took them so long, it's like a mass exodus once people hit VR1.  They are going to make more changes to improve the veteran levels as well and will talk about them at QuakeCon.  Bethesda owns ID software and Quake in case your first question is "QuakeCon?".

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/117132/veteran-system-changes-preview

I will finally get to go back to questing, I've been waiting on this inevitability for weeks.

Its funny to me that at some point in their dev cycle they decided forcing people to group was somehow a good idea combined with a shitty risk vs reward system....BRILLIANT!  This will keep people subbed!  Morons


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on July 06, 2014, 04:34:23 AM
Have you heard of the bug/memoy leak/videocard fuckup they introduced a few patches ago that basically brings your CPU to its knees and transforms the game into a slideshow until you quit and restart it, and it happens every 30 minutes or so? Apparently doesn't hit everyone, but there's a good 30% rate that you are in it if you don't have an nVidia card. Of my real life friends still playing the game, 4 out of 6 have been dealing with this for about a week with no actual response or solution from Zenimax.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 06, 2014, 05:05:13 AM
Yes it only happens in the PvP zone so PvP people are basically giving up.  I imagine the campaigns are being won by anyone with a large guild who can log off/on together as a group.  Worse yet they have twice claimed to have found out what the problem was and put in a 'fix' that either failed or only worked for a few hours.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 10, 2014, 03:05:57 PM
Got an email this morning saying my sub payment was successful.  Just got another one a few minutes ago saying it failed.  The successful one had links to live systems, the failed one had links to what looks like a test environment.  A few people on the forums have noticed this.  I'm guessing they tried to do a billing run from the test environment but forgot to switch off actually sending the emails.

I wonder how many people are going to get 'payment failed you can't play anymore' messages until they fix this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 11, 2014, 04:45:12 AM
I love your posts on this game Miasma.

Supposedly they want to make the game "More solo friendly." I thought the problem was that it wasn't group friendly? Anyway. Polygon did a repost of an earlier point Miasma made about the forums.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/10/5887949/elder-scrolls-online-updates

Quote
"Our goal is to remove the feeling of 'have just hit a wall of difficulty' that many of you have commented on — you'll be able to solo much more easily," the post reads.

"One of the guiding principles of our Veteran gameplay was to encourage people (not force them) to group. We wanted people to be able to solo to max level, but still wanted you to participate in group content ... But this hasn't been well-received. Many of you love the game you played from 1-50, and the Veteran-level zones are too much of a departure from that experience."

Quakecon is in like 6 days, when supposedly they will make more PR mistakes. I'm looking forward to news.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on July 11, 2014, 03:14:58 PM
"We thought you would enjoy a punch in the face but have found that you, in fact, have not."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 17, 2014, 11:35:50 AM
Now on steam. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/306130/)  Half off until the end of the weekend...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 17, 2014, 01:11:49 PM
Now on steam. (http://store.steampowered.com/app/306130/)  Half off until the end of the weekend...

First post I noticed:

Quote
Thinking of buying? Don't.
Let me start by saying I pre ordered the collector's edition, and I am a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls series. I'm not just some run of the mill troll on here to bash the game. I REALLY wanted this game to succeed.

So let's begin...

Leveling 1-50 is fun...and that's about it.

- Vet ranks is a terrible quest grind that forces you to play the other factions' zones (so you'll never want to make an alt ever)

- Bugs bugs bugs (even 4+ months after release). Every time they patch the game, they add more bugs, some of which are game breaking.

- "Play how you want" is a lie, melee classes are still broken and often don't get invited to raids because of how terrible they are compared to others. Thinking about leveling strictly via PVP? Don't bother, it's not a viable way to level.

- Boring and uninspired loot

- Combat is terrible

- Grouping system is broken. Want to play with friends? You better hope they are at the exact same part of the quests as you, otherwise you're on your own. Basically a single player MMO.

- No open world PVP

- PVP Lag

- No PVP arena, no battlegrounds

- PVP zone is only fun with an organized group, otherwise you can't make any different in the battle.

- "Raids" are boring and cookie cutter.

- Lack of content. No thieves guild, no dark brotherhood, not enough end game, etc.

and last but not least, the devs are just plain terrible. (people being overcharged, taking weeks to respond to tickets, etc)

There's probably more that I'm forgetting but this should be enough for now.

The game basically feels like a beta test before it releases on consoles. If you can pick this up for cheap it might be worth it just to play through the main storyline once, but it's definitely not worth playing after your free month is over. If you want an MMO to keep you entertained for many months/years, this game is NOT for you.

I know people will reply saying "BUT THEY'RE GOING TO FIX <whatever problem>" or "BUT THEY'RE GOING TO ADD <whatever>". That is simply not good enough. They released a broken and incomplete game, end of story.

EDIT:

I forgot about bots and hacks! The game is run client side so it's extremely easy for hackers to make bots and cheats for this game. Bots can teleport, go invisible, fly and all kinds of other crazy things.

EDIT2:

If you're not from North America know that the European server isn't even in europe and you will experience more lag than usual.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on July 17, 2014, 03:53:22 PM
If leveling 1-50 is actually fun then it's probably worth that half-off price and a month or two. Not that I'm taking the chance, I'm happy with my current MMO still.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on July 17, 2014, 07:44:03 PM
Just popped in to say this Steam sale is hilarious. I *think* that's a new record.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on July 17, 2014, 08:16:02 PM
Every time I see this thread updated I'm like, "Oh man, this is gonna be good."  It never stops giving.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on July 17, 2014, 08:31:45 PM
Quote
If you want an MMO to keep you entertained for many months/years, this game is NOT for you.

No I Am Not Entertained


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on July 17, 2014, 09:04:06 PM
F2P within a year or so.
Gotta milk that console subs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on July 17, 2014, 09:56:17 PM
Just popped in to say this Steam sale is hilarious. I *think* that's a new record.

I want to say Secret World had a big sale as soon, if not sooner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on July 18, 2014, 04:50:28 AM
Secret World is still a better game.

That said, mr. Steam reviewer lost me at, "no open world PvP" and "can't level on PvP alone."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 18, 2014, 05:04:32 AM
So,

- A lot of people have quit by now so of the people still playing many could be considered die hard loyalists.
- Some people care about vanity pets, a lot (not me, I think they're pointless).
- There seems to be a correlation between die hard loyalists and people who care, a lot, about vanity pets.

Combining these notes we can formulate a sure fire way to piss off the most rabid fans who normally rush to the defense of the game no matter what jaw droppingly stupid mistake Zenimax makes.

- Put the game on steam and then give it a steam-only cute little doggy with a cool name "wolfhound".
- Attach the steam-only pet to the more expensive CE type version of the game.
- Make it "limited time only" for this initial steam launch weekend.
- Make a forums post confirming that there will be no other way to get this pet other than the limited time steam sale.

There are like half a dozen threads about steam on the official forums and they are all about, or derail into, wailing and horror about this pet.  The people who are the most upset are the super fans who just have to have everything.  These are the people who normally think ESO can do no wrong and they are saying they will cancel if they don't get that pet.  In reality most of them will, of course, buy another whole copy of the game just to get their stupid wolfhound.  Oh look, it only came out partway through yesterday and ESO is number three on the top sellers list.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on July 18, 2014, 05:54:20 AM
Wow. Elder Scrolls Online: The Milkening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2014, 07:06:27 AM
Wow. Elder Scrolls Online: The Milkening.

That was the name from the beginning.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on July 18, 2014, 08:41:05 AM
Wow. Elder Scrolls Online: The Milkening.

That was the name from the beginning.

I call it Roberting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 18, 2014, 12:27:04 PM
Reading the steam reviews is fucking hilarious, which makes the metascore of 71/100 even more egregious.  This game is without a doubt going to severely hurt the elder scrolls brand if they don't axe it soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on July 18, 2014, 12:54:54 PM
I thought that too, but I'm still going to play ES6, regardless of this game. 

Damage to brand matters less if your market will still buy other products in your line.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 18, 2014, 01:07:10 PM
I want their next real game to be a new fallout anyways.  If so by the time ES6 comes out no one will remember ESO.

Plus 1-50 is genuinely fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2014, 01:09:45 PM
I thought that too, but I'm still going to play ES6, regardless of this game.  

Damage to brand matters less if your market will still buy other products in your line.

There's no way I will buy the next ES game at release after this. While I know they are different games, I have no idea what they will pull at this point. It will have to be way after the kinks are worked out before I trust the studio as a whole again.

And that's key. People that don't buy in at release cost these AAA people money. That's why this game needs to be a distant memory and a whole slew of apologies before the next hype train. They can't have this gimpy thing still lying around when the next game comes due.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 18, 2014, 01:43:26 PM
There's no way I will buy the next ES game at release after this. While I know they are different games, I have no idea what they will pull at this point. It will have to be way after the kinks are worked out before I trust the studio as a whole again.

And that's key. People that don't buy in at release cost these AAA people money. That's why this game needs to be a distant memory and a whole slew of apologies before the next hype train. They can't have this gimpy thing still lying around when the next game comes due.
Bioware Austin, etc. ES6 or FOIV or whatever will still be fantastic, and has nothing to do with the MMO spinoff. If you want to be silly and miss a great game because they used the license to make a mediocre MMO, that's your loss.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on July 18, 2014, 05:39:20 PM
That's why this game needs to be a distant memory and a whole slew of apologies before the next hype train.

That is the opposite of how business works.  If a product isn't successful, the next hype train needs to happen immediately, or the company goes under.

I haven't been buying Bethesda games on release day for a while.  Skyrim, while visually nice, had a shit UI, lots of bugs, and a combat system that didn't appeal to me.  Also,  you can't play the game without the many bug fixes in the Unofficial Patch, and that's made by the community, so Bethesda really never fixed their bugs.  It looks like they expected this scenario to happen with ESO too, except ESO is an MMO so that can't happen.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 18, 2014, 06:09:01 PM
Dulfy's Quakecon summary. (http://dulfy.net/2014/07/18/eso-quakecon-the-future-of-eso-panel-notes/)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 19, 2014, 02:44:22 PM
I thought that too, but I'm still going to play ES6, regardless of this game.  

Damage to brand matters less if your market will still buy other products in your line.

There's no way I will buy the next ES game at release after this. While I know they are different games, I have no idea what they will pull at this point. It will have to be way after the kinks are worked out before I trust the studio as a whole again.

And that's key. People that don't buy in at release cost these AAA people money. That's why this game needs to be a distant memory and a whole slew of apologies before the next hype train. They can't have this gimpy thing still lying around when the next game comes due.
1-50 is good fun.  Also on an unrelated matter what is your steam id?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 20, 2014, 09:34:52 AM
I'm in the F13 group under Paelos


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 20, 2014, 10:47:26 AM
I thought it would be funny to send you a copy of the game but steam's UI is pretty terrible and after fighting with it for a while I realized you have to either know the person's email address or already be friended with them so I gave up.  Probably for the best.  I maintain it would have been funny though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 20, 2014, 07:02:07 PM
I thought it would be funny to send you a copy of the game but steam's UI is pretty terrible and after fighting with it for a while I realized you have to either know the person's email address or already be friended with them so I gave up.  Probably for the best.  I maintain it would have been funny though.

I would have laughed, yes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on July 21, 2014, 06:50:09 PM
Waiting for F2P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on July 21, 2014, 08:30:56 PM
Someone got me a Steam card and curiosity to see where it is at these days almost got the best of me, but then I remembered that they never added a centered 3rd person view. Crisis averted.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 22, 2014, 04:55:43 AM
Someone got me a Steam card and curiosity to see where it is at these days almost got the best of me, but then I remembered that they never added a centered 3rd person view. Crisis averted.

Wait.....wait......wait......WHAT?!  Oh god.  This is not hyperbole but I simply cannot play 3rd person games where it's not centered on the player, it's so damn jarring. 

(I know you can play first person too but that generally seems a bad idea for an mmo with pvp.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 22, 2014, 05:08:34 AM
I keep forgetting about that; it's a deal breaker for me too and the reason I stopped playing the beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 22, 2014, 05:57:02 AM
It only does that if you are zoomed quite far in, it assumes you want an over the shoulder type view.  At the camera distance that most people play it looks centered.

Still stupid though.

Edit: This video shows the differences. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK99luV1UtQ)  Mute the sound.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 22, 2014, 08:40:19 AM
Yep, that's not playable in my mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ozzu on July 27, 2014, 12:56:10 AM
So, I picked this up on one of the many CDKey selling websites for $25.

First impressions? Well, I'm only level 8, but coming from Wildstar, the questing seems an order of magnitude more interesting. The combat? It's alright. It doesn't feel nearly as responsive as the combat in Wildstar, but I'm still getting accustomed to it. On a couple of other notes, I like the look of the game and there seem to be lots of people running around. I've yet to do any group content, but I guess I'll get around to that in the next couple of days.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on July 27, 2014, 06:22:09 AM
All chuckles aside, there's a lot of good in this MMORPG (for a MMORPG). Too bad it gets overshadowed soon (if not immeiately) by the not-good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on July 28, 2014, 03:36:19 PM
The European megaserver will actually be moved to, of all places, Europe - on Wednesday.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on July 29, 2014, 08:04:48 AM
I got a message that noted I was a beta tester who didn't buy the game and would I like to fill out a survey as to why. It was sent yesterday sometime in the afternoon. Just clicked on it. Survey's closed.

Which pretty much sums up why I'm not playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 29, 2014, 02:21:07 PM
I got a message that noted I was a beta tester who didn't buy the game and would I like to fill out a survey as to why. It was sent yesterday sometime in the afternoon. Just clicked on it. Survey's closed.

Which pretty much sums up why I'm not playing.

Same thing. It's pretty hilarious. I'm sure their responses were enlightening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on August 04, 2014, 11:01:56 AM
Large patch today, update 3. (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/124010/patch-notes-v1-3-3)  The cost to respec has been reduced from 100g a point to 1g but only for one week, so if you were thinking of making some changes do it soon.  Most of the changes seem like good fixes or additions.  We'll know more about any new bugs introduced in a day or two.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on August 04, 2014, 01:03:21 PM
There were a bunch of changes to guilds in this patch.  People logged on and everyone but the guild leaders had been demoted to the lowest level, so no one else can invite/promote/bank.  A lot of guild leaders are no longer playing so if they can't fix/revert this a tonne of guilds are going to be screwed.  Still not clear if every guild is affected or just some.

Edit: They have now disabled the entire guild system.  They have done this before to get around bugs but it confuses the hell out of people who don't know that because you log in and everything is just gone so they panic thinking they've been kicked out of all their guilds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on August 04, 2014, 04:09:12 PM
I love that you're sticking with this Miasma. The updates are great.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on August 04, 2014, 06:10:58 PM
Agreed.  Way to jump on the grenade there Miasma.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on August 09, 2014, 03:38:59 AM
This game is not half as bad as people seem to think. It just had too many quest bugs at launch and doesn't have any retention power in this day and age (especially with a fucking subscription!) but what new MMORPG does?

In before the "Oh it's actually a pretty good game now!" that will come in a year with the obligatory free2play. I mean, people still play crap like SWTOR and claim it's good, right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on August 09, 2014, 04:22:51 AM
SWTOR is a pretty good game when it's f2p.  If I have to spend $15 (and you kinda do with their restrictive f2p model), then it suddenly becomes not so good.  As for TESO, the same thing goes; I'll certainly play it when it goes f2p but not at $15 a month.  Sorry they should have made a more compelling game if they want a monthly from me. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 09, 2014, 06:12:29 AM
This game is not half as bad as people seem to think. It just had too many quest bugs at launch and doesn't have any retention power in this day and age (especially with a fucking subscription!) but what new MMORPG does?

In before the "Oh it's actually a pretty good game now!" that will come in a year with the obligatory free2play. I mean, people still play crap like SWTOR and claim it's good, right?

The whole guild system got disabled, great game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on August 09, 2014, 07:19:42 AM
It's back, they got it working again a couple days later.

The only things I liked about SWTOR were the class story line, one or two of the planet story lines and for some reason I found the ship fighting pretty fun even though most people hated the on rails nature of it.  If you like story line and quests ESO is way better than SWTOR.  At least launch SWTOR I don't know about the changes since f2p.

If ESO hadn't launched with so many bugs, bad inventory, bad auction house system and bad Veteran system it would have been well received.  The core questing is some of the best I've ever seen.  Exploration is amazing, there is something hidden around every bend.  The skill system is pretty good 1-50.  Persistent PvP in cyrodiil.  If you liked the elder scrolls or fallout you should love questing in ESO so long as you don't freak out about there being other people around.  I would highly recommend the game to those people when the next steam sale has it at at least half price, just go through either Ebonheart or Daggerfall 1-50 and then quit.

I really feel like they got halfway to an amazing mmo and then made a bunch of stupid rookie mistakes that ruined it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on August 09, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
It's back, they got it working again a couple days later.

The only things I liked about SWTOR were the class story line, one or two of the planet story lines and for some reason I found the ship fighting pretty fun even though most people hated the on rails nature of it.  If you like story line and quests ESO is way better than SWTOR.  At least launch SWTOR I don't know about the changes since f2p.

If ESO hadn't launched with so many bugs, bad inventory, bad auction house system and bad Veteran system it would have been well received.  The core questing is some of the best I've ever seen.  Exploration is amazing, there is something hidden around every bend.  The skill system is pretty good 1-50.  Persistent PvP in cyrodiil.  If you liked the elder scrolls or fallout you should love questing in ESO so long as you don't freak out about there being other people around.  I would highly recommend the game to those people when the next steam sale has it at at least half price, just go through either Ebonheart or Daggerfall 1-50 and then quit.

I really feel like they got halfway to an amazing mmo and then made a bunch of stupid rookie mistakes that ruined it.

I would definitely put this on my list of will try after a couple months of patches.   They should put it on steam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ozzu on August 09, 2014, 03:56:25 PM
I would definitely put this on my list of will try after a couple months of patches.   They should put it on steam.

They actually put it on Steam somewhat recently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on August 09, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
The only things I liked about SWTOR were the class story line, one or two of the planet story lines and for some reason I found the ship fighting pretty fun even though most people hated the on rails nature of it.  If you like story line and quests ESO is way better than SWTOR.  At least launch SWTOR; I don't know about the changes since f2p.

The changes SWTOR has made since launch (including the F2P) have simply improved quality-of-life stuff: easier XP, easier to outfit your alts via the legacy system, class / talent rebalances to make them do more DPS and be a bit more fun, and a large influx of equipment from the cartel microtransaction system.   I'm playing alts 1-50 (not even to max level) solely for the story lines, and there have been ZERO changes to those.  

With the voice acting and the companions, the story questing is pretty good for several classes; are you really saying that ESO is so much better?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ozzu on August 10, 2014, 12:25:19 AM
The changes SWTOR has made since launch (including the F2P) have simply improved quality-of-life stuff: easier XP, easier to outfit your alts via the legacy system, class / talent rebalances to make them do more DPS and be a bit more fun, and a large influx of equipment from the cartel microtransaction system.   I'm playing alts 1-50 (not even to max level) solely for the story lines, and there have been ZERO changes to those.  

With the voice acting and the companions, the story questing is pretty good for several classes; are you really saying that ESO is so much better?

I know the question wasn't intended for me, but having played SWTOR at launch and TESO recently, I'd say TESO is better for questing. It's the first MMO I remember that didn't have typical MMO quests. Though I wouldn't say it's a whole lot better than SWTOR in that regard. SWTOR handled that pretty well too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 10, 2014, 01:00:06 AM
I leveled 4 characters to max level in SWTOR and managed to get to level 12 on three separate attempts in TESO.  It's obvious to me which game was better.  The fact I'm not a fan of the Elder Scrolls franchise may have something to do with it as well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on August 10, 2014, 11:47:22 AM
The changes SWTOR has made since launch (including the F2P) have simply improved quality-of-life stuff: easier XP, easier to outfit your alts via the legacy system, class / talent rebalances to make them do more DPS and be a bit more fun, and a large influx of equipment from the cartel microtransaction system.   I'm playing alts 1-50 (not even to max level) solely for the story lines, and there have been ZERO changes to those.  

With the voice acting and the companions, the story questing is pretty good for several classes; are you really saying that ESO is so much better?

I know the question wasn't intended for me, but having played SWTOR at launch and TESO recently, I'd say TESO is better for questing. It's the first MMO I remember that didn't have typical MMO quests. Though I wouldn't say it's a whole lot better than SWTOR in that regard. SWTOR handled that pretty well too.

What are its atypical MMO quests?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ozzu on August 11, 2014, 09:34:54 AM
What are its atypical MMO quests?

The lack of gathering quests first off. I can't imagine I've done none at all, but it sure seems like it. Lots of quests lead you to little dungeons all over the place and then to killing a "boss". A few have you stealing a disguise and wearing it to bypass enemies. Sometimes you're retrieving an item, but it's just different. Obviously, I'm not all that good at using words to explain things, but there you go.  :awesome_for_real:

I dunno. It just feels more single player in how it handles quests than any MMO I've ever played. As to whether that's enough to keep me subscribed, it's hard to say. It absolutely does questing well though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on August 13, 2014, 11:49:02 AM
SWTOR is a great DIKU game if you only do the planet/class storyline and if you find yourself behind in experience do PVP or Dungeons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 13, 2014, 12:18:52 PM
And Starfighter. (Which IIRC is not limited for non-subscribers, either.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on August 13, 2014, 02:58:50 PM
SWTOR is a great DIKU game if you only do the planet/class storyline and if you find yourself behind in experience do PVP or Dungeons.

Did they ever fix PvP for melees classes? Leveled a sniper to 50, switched to Jedi and literally quit after my 2nd PvP match.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on August 13, 2014, 05:25:49 PM
SWTOR is a great DIKU game if you only do the planet/class storyline and if you find yourself behind in experience do PVP or Dungeons.

Did they ever fix PvP for melees classes? Leveled a sniper to 50, switched to Jedi and literally quit after my 2nd PvP match.

There were melee classes that were good in PvP all along, but I believe the current preferred ones are assassins/shadows. I also see a fair number of Jedi Guardians. A good DPS operative can be a huge pain in the ass too, but it's not something I have the patience for getting the hang of (I prefer being an OP'd healer instead).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 14, 2014, 10:54:53 AM
SWTOR is a great DIKU game if you only do the planet/class storyline and if you find yourself behind in experience do PVP or Dungeons.

Did they ever fix PvP for melees classes? Leveled a sniper to 50, switched to Jedi and literally quit after my 2nd PvP match.

You must not have been the 'lol force sweep' spec.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 14, 2014, 11:08:35 AM
You must not have been the 'lol force sweep' spec.

I thought the same thing.  That was a nightmare before they nerfed it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on August 14, 2014, 04:24:02 PM
It's lolsmash people , get it right!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 14, 2014, 04:25:00 PM
He said Jedi!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on August 14, 2014, 04:34:49 PM
That was what I was thinking of when I said there were good melee classes all along, yes. But he might've been a shadow!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 14, 2014, 05:37:40 PM
That was what I was thinking of when I said there were good melee classes all along, yes. But he might've been a shadow!

Shadows were the most OP 1v1 class in PvP until the split spec got nerfed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on August 15, 2014, 01:29:59 PM
That was pretty early in the game's life, though, and who knows how long it took him to hit 50 on his first character? The smashmonkey spec's nerf, on the other hand, is way more recent. They were dumb for a looooooooong time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on August 19, 2014, 06:23:19 AM
Funny, I just started playing SWTOR on and off and I'm going to be playing a Shadow. I'm going to be doing just the Storyline/Class quests with the Planet story quests and ignoring anything else. Using some major experience pots to help me along. When I fall behind in xp, I'm going to be doing flashpoints and pvp.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on August 20, 2014, 11:03:11 AM
The test server now has the next content update, it is an expansion of their much maligned group only zone.  An example of how bad it is is the quest that takes you through the zone.  There are multiple stages where you need to find three other people who are at the exact same point as you in the quest because of phasing.  If they are a couple quests behind they are useless and worse yet if they have already done it then they can't do it again and you are out of luck.  The use of group only zones can be debated (I hate them but realize others might like it) but not being able to do it even if you have a group is absolutely idiotic.  Also, so far all of their content updates have been group only content, nothing to do solo.

They are also raising the level cap to VR14, that's not going over well.  Now everyone knows not to bother crafting or getting new gear because you will want to replace it in another month or so.  To their credit crafted gear is quite good in the end game but to get the very highest quality requires a lot of expensive rare mats so either you will now horde them until later or get pissed off that you already used them.

This game really makes me appreciate that WoW had the item progression treadmill down to a science.  You don't just increase the max level from 60 to 62 in the middle of an expansion, you have an ilvl system tied to very specific tiers and activities.  You make the gear something people enjoyed obtaining so when the next raid comes out with higher ilvls people are excited for it instead of screaming about how everything they created so far is now 'useless'.

I feel like the more group content and increased level cap are happening because that was their plan before launch and they don't have the flexibility to change their course based on how things have turned out.  People do not like their group content.  Their grouping systems suck, the rewards are mediocre and it is even buggier than their solo content because now there are four people involved each time.  I imagine they wanted to save things everyone wants like thief and assassin guild content for future expansions but at this rate the game won't be popular enough to have expansions so they might want to make use of that content now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 21, 2014, 05:39:53 AM
 :awesome_for_real: 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 21, 2014, 05:41:45 AM
Even more proof that every MMO Dev is disconnected from their consumers.    :uhrr:



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on August 21, 2014, 06:07:49 AM
Even more proof that every MMO Dev is disconnected from their consumers.    :uhrr:

Respect the vision!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on August 21, 2014, 07:38:41 AM
Sounds like it's going swimmingly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on August 21, 2014, 11:07:31 AM
http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/2014/08/21/eso-subscriber-loyalty-program

Quote
ESO Introduces Subscriber Loyalty Program

Get your High Hrothgar Wraith pet and other rewards as a thank you for subscribing!

Since launch, we’ve loved sharing the adventure of ESO with you as you explore ever-growing Tamriel. There’s so much more on the horizon, but we think it’s important to give some special recognition to those of you who have already been there every step of the way.

Starting in September, we’ll begin emailing all eligible paid subscribers about the first of our loyalty rewards. Every paid account that has been subscribed for three months (excluding game time included with your purchase of ESO and any additional complimentary game time) will receive a High Hrothgar Wraith vanity pet that will let you show your dedication to saving Tamriel wherever you adventure in-game. The loyalty program will keep expanding over time, so keep an eye out for more tokens of our gratitude if you’re a longtime player. Our next reward will be granted for those who have subscribed for six months—we’ll reveal it to you soon.

If you haven’t kept your subscription active, don’t worry. You’ll still be able to get the pets and other upcoming rewards once you meet the requirements. Stick with us, and you’ll have quite the collection to show off before long.

Thank you all for spending your time with us in Tamriel!

(http://files.elderscrollsonline.com/uploads/blogs/4292013e75fc2f72e4d514e672b89987.jpg)



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on August 21, 2014, 11:40:15 AM
Funny looking carrot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 21, 2014, 11:41:33 AM
I like how they make begging look dignified.  That's a skill.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on August 21, 2014, 11:51:12 AM
COH had that loyalty reward system that I thought was a nice idea. It's a little surprising that no other games have done it formally until now (that I'm aware of.) SWTOR occasionally tosses stuff at me but it isn't on a schedule or anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on August 21, 2014, 11:53:42 AM
COH had that loyalty reward system that I thought was a nice idea. It's a little surprising that no other games have done it formally until now (that I'm aware of.) SWTOR occasionally tosses stuff at me but it isn't on a schedule or anything.

I love loyalty programs.  When they get added later it starts to look a little desperate.  This should have been part of the launch... not that it would have helped.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on August 21, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
STO has a loyalty reward thing as well


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on August 21, 2014, 12:09:09 PM
COH had that loyalty reward system that I thought was a nice idea. It's a little surprising that no other games have done it formally until now (that I'm aware of.) SWTOR occasionally tosses stuff at me but it isn't on a schedule or anything.

Rift had a really nice/elaborate one, but since it went F2P the loyalty rewards are tied to # months subscribed and/or $ spent. Consequently, it feels less like a loyalty bonus and more like black hole for real money. Getting to the highest loyalty levels involves spending thousands on the game. The perks they've introduced to higher tiers since F2P have felt pretty cheap too: instead of a nice mount or cosmetic armor set, it's stuff like cooldown reduction on non-combat abilities.

It was a really nice example of a loyalty system when it was introduced though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on August 21, 2014, 03:08:16 PM
UO had vet/loyalty rewards for a long long long time. FFXIV also has them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on August 21, 2014, 03:54:09 PM
COH had that loyalty reward system that I thought was a nice idea. It's a little surprising that no other games have WoW hasn't done it formally until now (that I'm aware of.) SWTOR occasionally tosses stuff at me but it isn't on a schedule or anything.
FIFY. Add EQ2 to the list of games that have had it for forever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on August 22, 2014, 01:01:01 AM
loyalty rewards are also often part of the transition to f2p so that the hardcore stay subscribed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 5150 on August 22, 2014, 04:02:49 AM
SWG (yes I went there) also had one around NGE time (might have been slightly before because I got a couple of bits from it but quit soon after NGE hit)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on August 22, 2014, 04:08:25 AM
SWG (yes I went there) also had one around NGE time (might have been slightly before because I got a couple of bits from it but quit soon after NGE hit)

No reason not to bring it up...not only did it have them, but one of them was HUUUUUUUGE.  Lots and lots of holgrams for decoration purposes.  The coup de grace was the Anti-Decay Kit.  Very controversial, but a fucking great gift.  Or maybe that wasn't the same kind of reward?  Can't recall why we received them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: DraconianOne on August 22, 2014, 07:51:14 AM
SWG (yes I went there) also had one around NGE time (might have been slightly before because I got a couple of bits from it but quit soon after NGE hit)

No reason not to bring it up...not only did it have them, but one of them was HUUUUUUUGE.  Lots and lots of holgrams for decoration purposes.  The coup de grace was the Anti-Decay Kit.  Very controversial, but a fucking great gift.  Or maybe that wasn't the same kind of reward?  Can't recall why we received them.

Length of service. They ended up giving away houses and all sorts iirc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on September 03, 2014, 09:59:40 AM
More layoffs at Zenimax Online:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/09/03/the-elder-scrolls-online-studio-zenimax-online-hit-with-layoffs/

Dunno if it's something similar to what happened back in June (http://connachttribune.ie/galway-jobs-blow-300-gone-software-firm/) of if the axe hit other positions beside CS, this time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on September 03, 2014, 11:01:25 AM
Someone I know who works there has just been laid off, and they are NOT in CS.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Senses on September 03, 2014, 03:11:52 PM
cycle of life.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 03, 2014, 06:29:03 PM
That console release is never happening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on September 03, 2014, 06:54:09 PM
cycle of life.

(http://gifsoup.com/download/?id=3994373&d=animatedgifs3&n=lion-king-rafiki-drops-simba&s=o)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on September 03, 2014, 09:04:05 PM
So...is this game and Wildstar ready for the graveyard?  I would think so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on September 03, 2014, 09:41:12 PM
The teams behind ESO and wildstar aren't newbies; Firor and Gaffney have been around the grindstone a couple times each. I am downright astonished that neither seems to have prepared for the possibility of the subscription model failing to support their title. It seems like such a neophyte mistake that I honestly assumed they both had B2P/F2P frameworks fully coded and ready to go, and both had launched as subscription titles in a frothy mélange of aspirational optimism (Who knows, maybe we'll be the next WoW!) and cynical market segmentation (Maximize revenue from initial adopters, then pivot to F2P in 3-6 months!).

But no. It seems neither team considered the possibility of failure. They're sticking to subscriptions, death spiral be damned. And so, here we are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on September 03, 2014, 10:00:44 PM
I am downright astonished that neither seems to have prepared for the possibility of the subscription model failing to support their title.

Do we know that?  I'd still put money on them going F2P fairly soon, just not right now.  Games only been live for like five months, and even SWtOR lasted for closer to seven.  I'd be pretty shocked at any MMO that honestly doesn't have an F2P plan at some level of development (I suspect even WoW has one) but it's not something you'd admit to or put in a press release until you have a definite release date.

edit: oops, five months, according to wikipedia, my bad


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on September 04, 2014, 03:48:23 AM
ESO's f2p plans might have been sidetracked with their efforts going into the delayed console versions of the game. f2p might have been meant to hit pc version shortly before the console launch to make it part of the game in the console versions too.

(Then again they might have actually believed that subs would be enough to sustain the game in the long run especially if they had gotten the console versions released as planned)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 04, 2014, 06:58:41 AM
Well hopefully this gets Sage and Firor and all the higher up devs at Wildstar to never make a game again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on September 04, 2014, 07:19:06 AM
I imagine it's more likely they had their heads in the sand and really didn't know the sub model is dead for new games without putting out something so good it's more a matter of luck and serendipity than having even the best team ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on September 04, 2014, 11:44:23 AM
Despite the preponderance of evidence, I still don't think the sub model is dead.

ESO and Wildstar should have done exactly what I said earlier-- put their best foot forward and release with subscriptions, because who knows, maybe they'll cage lightning in a bottle and become the third breakout MMO success? You don't target failure, after all, right?

But realistically, you have that B2P or F2P option ready to go the instant it becomes clear that you aren't going to be WoW2. You don't flounder in a death spiral for six months like ESO. You rip the band-aid off and go B2P on day 91.

Oh, and you don't do 1999-era sharded servers in 2014. That was just silly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on September 04, 2014, 11:46:57 AM
So...is this game and Wildstar ready for the graveyard?  I would think so.

They can't go to the graveyard if they never got subforums in the first place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 04, 2014, 01:05:15 PM
I think a sub model works just fine for a game. You just need a game that's actually worth a sub. A DIKU clone or an Elder Scrolls Abortion is not worth it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on September 04, 2014, 01:07:19 PM
I think a sub model works just fine for a game. You just need a game that's actually worth a sub. A DIKU clone or an Elder Scrolls Abortion is not worth it.

Has there been a successful subscription based game in.... years?  Not ones that continue to live from a decade ago, but a new release with that model.

I say that as someone who would prefer to pay a monthly fee to playing a free to play game.  It just doesn't seem viable anymore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 04, 2014, 01:17:32 PM
Define years. People still pay subs for RIFT and SWTOR. There was a sub thing for HEX for a short while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ard on September 04, 2014, 01:34:32 PM
Has there been a successful subscription based game in.... years?  Not ones that continue to live from a decade ago, but a new release with that model.

I say that as someone who would prefer to pay a monthly fee to playing a free to play game.  It just doesn't seem viable anymore.

Final Fantasy 14.  Somewhere between 1 and 2 million players.  Saved Square from bankruptcy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shatter on September 04, 2014, 01:46:26 PM
I think a sub model works just fine for a game. You just need a game that's actually worth a sub. A DIKU clone or an Elder Scrolls Abortion is not worth it.

Has there been a successful subscription based game in.... years?  Not ones that continue to live from a decade ago, but a new release with that model.

I say that as someone who would prefer to pay a monthly fee to playing a free to play game.  It just doesn't seem viable anymore.

FFXIV has been very successful as a sub model, out 1 year.  As someone said, basically pulled SE out of the fire. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on September 04, 2014, 05:12:43 PM
Define years. People still pay subs for RIFT and SWTOR. There was a sub thing for HEX for a short while.

I don't mean free to play with an option subscription/"gold" membership, etc.  I guess this Final Fantasy game is full sub based though?  That's neat.  Almost makes me want to check it out just for that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 05, 2014, 06:54:19 AM
Why doesn't a F2P game with a sub option not count? People are still paying subscription money. SWTOR is doing pretty great. Rift is about to launch another expansion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on September 05, 2014, 07:18:54 AM
Given the evidence displayed, I'll repeat my comment.  A sub-game only works if it's a really good game.  (I consider FFXIV worth it, and the sub keeps it from having some of the side-effects of being f2p)

Pretty much everything released in the last few years has been far better off as f2p.  The conversion from sub to f2p might have given them a publicity boost they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, but we're reaching enough time passed since this trend started that starting out with a sub will hurt more than being f2p initially.

Unless a really good game.  And there's just not a lot of those released.  Ever.  FFXIV didn't even get it right the first time...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on September 05, 2014, 07:21:49 AM
It might count with a subscription you absolutely don't need to speend money but really most subs in f2p games are "monthly bulk discounts" rather then "all access pass". So, I can be nickel&dimed *and* have a monthly fee. Worst of both worlds. I tend avoid an MMOG with a sub of any form because I know generally the developer has every reason to make unsub's life miserable to induce them to go sub. Homie don't play that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on September 05, 2014, 07:25:25 AM
It might count with a subscription you absolutely don't need to speend money but really most subs in f2p games are "monthly bulk discounts" rather then "all access pass". So, I can be nickel&dimed *and* have a monthly fee. Worst of both worlds. I tend avoid an MMOG with a sub of any form because I know generally the developer has every reason to make unsub's life miserable to induce them to go sub. Homie don't play that.

I think people should watch this.  

F2P is currently broken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U)

I don't care for the arms race that occurs in many F2P games.  Outside of WG and Riot, F2P is a clever disguise for pay2win.  That's why I think a sub model is actually better for most players.  The sub should just be cheaper. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 05, 2014, 07:32:45 AM
I would play any sub game right now if it was $5 a month.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on September 05, 2014, 07:34:43 AM
I would play any sub game right now if it was $5 a month.

That's my point exactly.  I think a $4.99 sub could replace F2P and do quite well.  It just won't attract the investment $$$ needed to make a game in today's market. 



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on September 05, 2014, 07:48:13 AM
That's about what Club Penguin and Pixie Hollow subs cost.  So... the games are out there at the price point you want to pay.

The problem is NOT the price point of the sub.  The problem is the games are not worth paying for.  Make me a game that I don't want to stop playing and I'll pay $30 a month. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on September 05, 2014, 08:05:00 AM
Free Realms was that price, too, with a lifetime sub option around $30-40.  Basically the GW2 model of buy once play forever if you didn't want a sub.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 05, 2014, 08:28:48 AM
The problem is NOT the price point of the sub.  The problem is the games are not worth paying for.  Make me a game that I don't want to stop playing and I'll pay $30 a month. 

No, the problem is the price point. Some games are worth more, some are worth less. The problem is that they don't adjust the sub.

There's no way Elder Scrolls should be on the same sub price as WoW. None. They would attract more players and more sales by not having that sub price in place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on September 06, 2014, 04:33:28 AM
It's hard to convince a company to go the sub route, whether it's $5 or $15 a month.  The thing is that companies have shown that the average f2p player that pays anything pays more than $15 a month, it's just spread out a bit more and feels a bit less mandatory so it's not totally obvious to them like a sub is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on September 06, 2014, 06:43:14 AM

No, the problem is the price point. Some games are worth more, some are worth less. The problem is that they don't adjust the sub.


Well, sort of, but the problem is a lot of these games aren't worth "free."  Time is more valuable the the cost.  If I can afford 5 bucks a month for a game I can afford 15.   Give me a game I want to spend my gaming time on, and I'll pay for it.  But I'm not going to pay less for a worse game just because it's less, I don't have time to be playing mediocre games just because they could save me a few bucks compared to WoW (or whatever).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 06, 2014, 02:19:10 PM
I can afford the $15 too. That's not the issue. I can afford to go to the movies for $15, but it's not worth it to me. That's why I go to matinees for $10 if I ever go.

I'm a price sensitive person. Some people aren't at all. But I would think if you took a poll from ex-WoW players, the reason they aren't playing right now is because the sub wasn't worth the content. But what if you polled them on a reduced price sub? Is there are point where they just say yeah, that's worth the amount of content, I don't feel like I have to log in more than once a week for $5?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on September 07, 2014, 10:13:42 AM
I just don't have the same amount of contiguous time anymore to dedicate to MMOs for $15 to be worth it per month.

I can put like 10-15 hours a week into a game easy; I do that with Payday. I just don't usually marathon it for 8+ hours. I'm not a "micro-session" guy either who only pops on for like 30 minutes at a time, but towards the end of me playing MMOs actively I found myself logging on and doing a dungeon or two, then maybe wanting to do something else but realizing that while I had time to commit still I didn't have THAT much time. So I idled around chatting with people. So I quit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on September 07, 2014, 08:31:50 PM
Oh yeah, I posted this in the topic about ~2ish years ago at this point, guess where we are?



1. Rumors surface of a big IP AAA MMO done by some studio that has a good enough track record that people are curious.
2. As info trickles in fanboys get hardons, everyone speculates, IS THE HOLY TRINITY REALLY GONE THIS TIME? MAN I HOPE THE PVP IS LIKE DAOC!!
3. Breathless sorta-gameplay video of early beta/alpha product with devs talking over it about how they're really gonna do it right this time and how excited they are.
4. Fan news site opens.
5. Beta; game at best looks promising if they fix XYZ.
6. Game comes out, XYZ aren't fixed.
7. XYZ are never fixed, or fixed so slowly people get frustrated. Some big technical issues; servers, client, website, whatever.
8. Game does not immediately accrue WoW's numbers, publisher shitcans 3/4ths of the staff. Every big name creative head leaves.
9. Game stagnates, loses subs, everyone but dedicated fans move on.
10. F2P/Maintenance Mode.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on September 08, 2014, 07:59:24 AM
Oh yeah, I posted this in the topic about ~2ish years ago at this point, guess where we are?



1. Rumors surface of a big IP AAA MMO done by some studio that has a good enough track record that people are curious.
2. As info trickles in fanboys get hardons, everyone speculates, IS THE HOLY TRINITY REALLY GONE THIS TIME? MAN I HOPE THE PVP IS LIKE DAOC!!
3. Breathless sorta-gameplay video of early beta/alpha product with devs talking over it about how they're really gonna do it right this time and how excited they are.
4. Fan news site opens.
5. Beta; game at best looks promising if they fix XYZ.
6. Game comes out, XYZ aren't fixed.
7. XYZ are never fixed, or fixed so slowly people get frustrated. Some big technical issues; servers, client, website, whatever.
8. Game does not immediately accrue WoW's numbers, publisher shitcans 3/4ths of the staff. Every big name creative head leaves.
9. Game stagnates, loses subs, everyone but dedicated fans move on.
10. F2P/Maintenance Mode.

I'm confused, you're describing every game ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on September 08, 2014, 08:10:48 AM
Well, all bad games at least.  At least those made in the last 10 years or so.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maven on September 08, 2014, 08:20:47 AM
Good theory. I think MMOs would do better without the stoking of hyperbolic fantasies in the user base and excessive expectations of return on investment. For example, I think Old Republic is doing well for itself -- despite all that was put into it at the start.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on September 11, 2014, 11:00:13 AM
I do wonder if a new game would have a better launch profile if one just launched without any pre-launch hype at all.

The other model that I am surprised has not been tried is the premium sub model with a capped subscriber base.  Build a small, tightknit game that only allows 5,000 players and charge $25-50 a month.  The aura of exclusivity might be quite powerful.  The game still has to be good - which seems to be the hard part.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on September 11, 2014, 11:53:58 AM
There was an original EQ server that charged $25 a month.  It was premium and so they had a lot more GM events where they would spawn as monters/allies and play out events.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ozzu on September 12, 2014, 04:46:24 AM
There was an original EQ server that charged $25 a month.  It was premium and so they had a lot more GM events where they would spawn as monters/allies and play out events.

Hell, I think it was $40 a month to play on that server. I think it was called the "Legends" server or something. Yeah, that didn't go over well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on September 12, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
Not a bad proxy for what I had in mind, but it was plugged into a 10 year old game as opposed to a fresh one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on September 15, 2014, 03:37:44 PM
Every large patch resets all the damn settings for everyone, it's insane.  All your keybinds, options, tutorials and colours reset back to fucking default.  Infuriating.  All we got was more shitty group content and a bunch of new bugs in exchange.

Edit: Even my God damn chat settings ffs.  This is going to take an hour to unfuck on all my characters.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on September 15, 2014, 08:17:03 PM
Find the text files that contain those settings and set them to read only - or if that fucks up the patch, copy them elsewhere after you've got everything set.

When they patch you can use winmerge to examine the changes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on September 15, 2014, 08:32:28 PM
It also introduced some sort of graphical stuttering which I can't get rid of no matter how I fiddle with the graphic settings.  So the patch broke my configs, reduced performance, added bad group content, raised the level cap but didn't add any new solo content to get there, introduced a new trait which would take another seven months to research for crafting and broke some other stuff.  I've cancelled by sub, think I'm going to take the winter off from video games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on September 16, 2014, 12:47:02 PM
Don't buy tickets to a shit show and then complain when poop lands on you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on September 16, 2014, 01:47:35 PM
So ends teh Miasma TESO experience. It was a good run. I still expect the game to completely implode before 2016.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 18, 2014, 11:24:56 AM
I just want you all to know, this game still exists apparently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: CaptainNapkin on November 18, 2014, 12:56:32 PM
Any word on this moving to a f2p model yet? I'm curious to check it out, but no longer interested in paying monthly fee for any mmo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 18, 2014, 02:02:54 PM
Apparently they put in a lot of good quality of life changes and fixes. Still can't be assed to actually find out what those are exactly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on November 19, 2014, 09:45:17 AM
Is it DIKU? Is the combat like in the Elder Scrolls series or bullshit EQ/WoW model combat? Is there story content on the scale of SWTOR or close to it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 19, 2014, 10:28:48 AM
Honestly I had a great time playing through the quests and story solo. Class system is really awesome. However it kind of failed in the  mmo department.

Combat is between tera and gw2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: veredus on November 19, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
It's a great shared world single player game. Very much worth going through the story once. The biggest fail is how hard it is to do things with other people unless they are the exact same step in the exact same quest as you. Supposedly they were trying to fix that but haven't played in awhile.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 19, 2014, 02:14:06 PM
Apprently they fixed the phasing thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 19, 2014, 02:22:53 PM
Did they ever add a straight-on 3rd person camera option?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: veredus on November 19, 2014, 02:59:21 PM
No. But then I don't think it needs fixing. It took me less then 30 minutes to get used to it and it was fine after that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 19, 2014, 03:18:07 PM
I dealt with it for about 30 minutes in the beta before uninstalling. It's worse than a lack of invert mouse option.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on November 19, 2014, 04:37:00 PM
I seem to remember from my time in beta that it would center the camera if you zoomed all the way out.  Otherwise I'd have done the same thing as Rendakor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 19, 2014, 06:50:00 PM
Right. It was only over the shoulder if you were up close to your character. Camera was fine.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sophismata on December 22, 2014, 11:35:08 PM
I dealt with it for about 30 minutes in the beta before uninstalling. It's worse than a lack of invert mouse option.
There's no invert mouse option?

When did invert mouse stop being the default selection, anyway. Half-Life?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on December 23, 2014, 06:16:23 AM
The lack of invert mouse was Arche Age I think; pretty sure you could invert it in ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Teleku on December 30, 2014, 06:24:28 AM
When I rule the world, people who ever click the 'invert mouse' option are the first ones going straight to the camps.  Along with people who use trackballs instead of mice.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on December 30, 2014, 08:33:22 AM
When I rule the world, people who ever click the 'invert mouse' option are the first ones going straight to the camps.  Along with people who use trackballs instead of mice.

GULP!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on December 30, 2014, 08:47:30 AM
When I rule the world, people who ever click the 'invert mouse' option are the first ones going straight to the camps.  Along with people who use trackballs instead of mice.

GULP!

 :mob: :mob:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2014, 10:27:40 AM
Trackballs are terrible. You should be in prison.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on December 30, 2014, 02:07:53 PM
Mouse for gaming, trackball for work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 30, 2014, 02:22:38 PM
I find it funny that this is what it takes to bump the thread. This game. Honestly.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/12/30/the-elder-scrolls-online-quietly-removes-six-month-subscriptions

Hey look kids, we're moving long term subs. Wonder why???

http://gamerant.com/elder-scrolls-online-consoles-delay-2015/

Probs because the console release that I still believe will never actually happen got delayed again until December 2015? Why not just say October 2030? It's just as real.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on December 30, 2014, 02:37:22 PM
I think it will be a strong B2P release on console, provided they find a way to monetize past the initial sale.  Especially if they find a way to not gate core content without payment.  I can see future classes being $20 per, legendary questlines for $10, all the extras like skins and xp boosts, pets.

The trick is to perform a strategic relaunch as FFXiV did and catch a whole swath of console gamers that really don't follow MMOs but like Skyrim. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on December 31, 2014, 03:07:03 AM
I think it will be a strong B2P release on console, provided they find a way to monetize past the initial sale.  Especially if they find a way to not gate core content without payment.  I can see future classes being $20 per, legendary questlines for $10, all the extras like skins and xp boosts, pets.

The trick is to perform a strategic relaunch as FFXiV did and catch a whole swath of console gamers that really don't follow MMOs but like Skyrim. 

I don't know.  I think once console gamers realize not only is this NOT like Skyrim, but there's pay walls gating content , it'll be dead in the water. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 31, 2014, 06:50:26 AM
I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on December 31, 2014, 10:13:26 AM
I think you're quite safe. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on December 31, 2014, 11:07:39 AM
Finish the sentence (gif and pics are also acceptable  :grin:) :

"The Elder Scrolls Online thread on F13.net reached 100 pages because..."



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: carnifex27 on December 31, 2014, 11:13:02 AM
Finish the sentence:

"The Elder Scrolls Online thread on F13.net reached 100 pages because..."


(https://s3.amazonaws.com/img.ultrasignup.com/events/raw/6a76f4a3-4ad2-4ae2-8a3b-c092e85586af.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 31, 2014, 11:33:21 AM
http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=24532.0


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 31, 2014, 12:45:37 PM
The game has almost been completely retooled with some of their upcoming updates. The game actually looks like it might be pretty fun. If you played the game to close to level cap, I would suggest checking out the changes. If they come even close to what they are promising, this is the game that should of been released and might of had a better fairing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on December 31, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
I'm actually playing it now and it's fun enough.  I couldn't get anywhere with Archeage crafting at all.  It might last me more than one month if the crafting is nice... I haven't tried it yet.  I played one character to level 15 in the beta and I'm level 10 on a different sort of character so it's new stuff for me.  I don't think there's any housing in this game though, which makes me sad.  I like housing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 31, 2014, 06:52:15 PM
I actually enjoyed playing TESO during release through 40 something levels, but I never hit the level cap. I saw the wheels coming off a long time before that. But I really enjoyed what was there though. If it becomes more fleshed out, I might give it another spin. I really like their level cap "leveling" system.

I just don't know if the content is there and worth investing more time in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 01, 2015, 10:12:21 AM
Fortunately I can wait six month to have the option of f2p or never playing it after beta because they shut down.  Either way, I win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 02, 2015, 01:39:00 PM
I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.

I'm feeling confident. Don't think they shut down by Jan 2016, F2P will give them a decent boost, even if it is a dead cat bounce. Unless they blow it on the cash model of course.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2015, 10:37:03 AM
If they come even close to what they are promising, this is the game that should of have been released and might of had a better fairing.

When has this EVER happened with an MMO? 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 03, 2015, 10:41:35 AM
If they come even close to what they are promising, this is the game that should of have been released and might of had a better fairing.

When has this EVER happened with an MMO? 

Rift maybe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 03, 2015, 11:16:46 AM
Rift is the only one that comes to mind for me, too.  Not a great average, is it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 03, 2015, 11:49:00 AM
Eh, i'd say they over sold on both the rifts and their class system imo.  What they described is basically what EQNext is promising but with rifts, and their class system was not supposed to be limited by base classes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 03, 2015, 11:53:19 AM
GW2, at release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2015, 03:38:38 PM
Rift maybe.

Sadly Rift went the exact opposite way for me.  Started off great and slowly devolved into a game I didn't like. 

So much wasted potential in the MMO industry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 04, 2015, 12:14:19 PM
Rift maybe.

Sadly Rift went the exact opposite way for me.  Started off great and slowly devolved into a game I didn't like. 

So much wasted potential in the MMO industry.

Oh I agree with this. They took a really good system and turned it into bland shit. Their class dev team along with the lead dev didn't have a fucking clue. At all. I'm not saying this as a jaded "they nerfed my class they suck" mentality. I actually talked to some of these people and they were completely ignorant of game systems.  Anyway, that ship has long sailed.

As far as GW2, I actually typed that out but deleted it. I thought the "dynamic" events they were talking about would be more dynamic. Instead they were simple pass/fail scripts. None of them were particular interesting after the first time. They actually talked about how some events had all of these turning points. They were all pretty linear.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 01:07:04 PM
Not after the first time, no. But GW2 has a ton of them, and as it's not a subscription game there's no particular reason to log in except when they offer new content, which they do on a somewhat regular basis. So yeah, they aren't true contained systems in terms of Raph's apocryphal "wolves eating deer controlling the population" type system. They're scripted. But I don't see that as a true downside.

Moving on to Rift, in many ways it was the opposite of Wildstar.

Rift's content was boring and bland; Wildstar's was vibrant and full of character.

Rift had dozens of abilities per character, many off the global cooldown, that had to be macroed together to play optimally. It was an abomination. Wildstar fixed that with its limited action set.

Rift's "soul" character specialization was incredibly well-designed and hasn't been touched since-- but unfortunately it was poorly implemented, with way too many souls per class, leading to lots of duplication across abilities and entire souls (cosmetics aside) and thus homogeneity, the kiss of death. There were no "iconic" abilities, which tossed identity out the window-- very important, to identify with your avatar. It confused players, and when they took the time to learn it, they realized it didn't really matter, there was one optimal spec per role per situation.

I could go on, it's actually fascinating how Rift and Wildstar contrast when you think about it. Moddable UI, dungeon finder, challenging content, etc. But that's not necessary, point is made. The problem isn't that nobody learns or tries to improve on those that came before-- the problem is that they only do so selectively.

You need to address everything. That's what it will take to come close to WoW's success.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
Rift's "soul" character specialization was incredibly well-designed and hasn't been touched since-- but unfortunately it was poorly implemented, with way too many souls per class, leading to lots of duplication across abilities and entire souls (cosmetics aside) and thus homogeneity, the kiss of death. There were no "iconic" abilities, which tossed identity out the window-- very important, to identify with your avatar. It confused players, and when they took the time to learn it, they realized it didn't really matter, there was one optimal spec per role per situation.

I think it's impossible to implement well in that type of game. Unfortunately I think all "class talent" systems inevitably become bland and pointless because there's only so much stuff you can do with them before one true spec rules the day, especially since almost 90% of the time people are using them to increase their DPS. If it becomes a race to the highest output, then math gets involved. Once math gets involved, you're fucked because there is a definite answer. There's no debate anymore. And then you're left with a pointless bunch of other stuff on the scrubs use because what? It's fun? LOL NOOBS.

I've thought talent systems were dumb since WoW first tried to do them. It's pointless. Just give players the abilities and stop trying to put in the illusion of choice. If anything customization needs to be obviously cosmetic, not game system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on January 04, 2015, 02:43:37 PM


I think it's impossible to implement well in that type of game. Unfortunately I think all "class talent" systems inevitably become bland and pointless because there's only so much stuff you can do with them before one true spec rules the day, especially since almost 90% of the time people are using them to increase their DPS. If it becomes a race to the highest output, then math gets involved. Once math gets involved, you're fucked because there is a definite answer. There's no debate anymore. And then you're left with a pointless bunch of other stuff on the scrubs use because what? It's fun? LOL NOOBS.

I agree, but the same thing would happen even if you get access to all abilities.  Then instead of "You chose X talent, noob" it's "You chose x ability to use, noob."  Any game with math involved (read: basically all of them), is going to have best, optimal choices.  It's why you "one true spec" in RPGs, it's why you have "build orders" in RTS games, builds in League of Legends and DOTA, etc.  Even in FPS games that have relatively little of that, there are going to be optimal choices based on the game mechanics.  Even when math isn't strictly speaking involved, if you are playing games there are good choices and bad choices and - almost always - optimal choices.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 04, 2015, 03:06:29 PM
GW1 skill and sub-profession system is still my favorite in that regard.  You could do a lot of things, but the limited bar meant you had to pick carefully.  It made for some truly varied builds, even within classes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 04:15:24 PM
I think it's impossible to implement well in that type of game. Unfortunately I think all "class talent" systems inevitably become bland and pointless because there's only so much stuff you can do with them before one true spec rules the day, especially since almost 90% of the time people are using them to increase their DPS. If it becomes a race to the highest output, then math gets involved. Once math gets involved, you're fucked because there is a definite answer.
I wasn't really talking about numbers balancing, although that problem did balloon due to the very large number of souls per class at release. I was talking about differentiation, identity, and not having 7 dozen abilities that must be macroed together.

Balancing talents is really a different discussion. Briefly, my answer would not be to make all choices cosmetic, because that means they don't matter.

My answer would be to make most choices not directly pertain to the soul's primary role. For example, a healer might have the opportunity to choose between multiple ways of dealing damage, or a tank might get the ability to off-heal while not actively taking damage, or any of these things could choose between various types of utility like runspeed, non-tank damage (AE) absorption, CC, etc.

Each soul would also get a strictly limited number of choices that do directly impact its primary role. Since the number of these choices would be very limited, balancing them wouldn't be an impossible challenge.

And all the choices should be distinct, visual, iconic, and awesome. You should be able to recognize when a Defense Attorney class uses his Objection! ability. It should do something unique, and powerful, and impact the encounter in a distinct way, and feel great to use. It shouldn't be mistaken for anything else. That's the identity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 06:24:06 PM
I would make talents about visual effects, more than about ability.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 07:18:30 PM
Then they wouldn't matter. You're basically saying players shouldn't be able to choose how their characters play, only how they look.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 07:34:47 PM
Then they wouldn't matter. You're basically saying players shouldn't be able to choose how their characters play, only how they look.

I'm saying it's a false choice, and a trap developers fall into all the time. Eventually they do what WoW does and continually pare things down further and further until they might as well not have them at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 07:45:38 PM
WoW's current talent system is carefully and elegantly designed to do exactly the opposite. It embodies what I was talking about quite neatly, in fact.

I said designed, not implemented. The implementation leaves much to be desired.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 07:49:00 PM
The implementation is everything. That's the point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 08:12:39 PM
Totally agree.

Key point here is just because nobody has ever succeeded at a task, that does not make it impossible. Difficult, certainly. Improbable, even. But not impossible.

Whichever game eventually supplants WoW will need to improve on it in every way, a quantum leap like WoW was to EQ. That definitely includes such key RPG ingredients like character progression and customization.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 08:17:30 PM
Okay let's not get semantic on the deal. Impossible in my mind means it's yet to have been done, given numerous attempts by large doses of cash.

Is there a universe or time where it's possible in a technical sense? Probably. As of yet, it has not occurred, and I do not see it occurring any time soon given the way MMOs are moving.

My main problem with "talents" is the falsehood they perpetuate, and the amount of time wasted on designing them when they could actually spend that time on a crafting/materials system that's awesome and would get much much more use.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 08:21:23 PM
Don't get caught up on the word talents, what we're really talking about here is character customization. Can you imagine D&D where wizards and rogues can't pick spells and feats? Is a game without character customization really a RPG? Even call of duty has perks and proficiencies. These things can be balanced, if you don't go crazy with the number of options like Rift. All I'm sayin'.

WoW successfully implemented a number of talent tiers, as a matter of fact. They failed many more, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, just that the recent fourth (or is it fifth?) generation of WoW devs working on class mechanics ran into a brick wall.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 04, 2015, 08:41:43 PM
The problem I have is the goal and the trinity. Talents don't fit into that box unless you're designing for a single player experience where fun is the name of the game.

As soon as you open it to multiplayer and co-op? It breaks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 04, 2015, 08:56:05 PM
It doesn't, though. It's just harder. For example, take the survival hunter L60 talent tier in WoW.

http://www.wowhead.com/talent#zhy

The player can choose between three options, all of which directly impact their chosen role's performance by changing ability usage through resource generation or free attacks. All three options perform essentially identically-- simulated variance on sustained damage is ~2.5% from top to bottom.

The first option, Steady Focus, changes how the spec plays, asking the player to use abilities differently. It increases resource generation and changes the spec into more of a "casting" playstyle to sustain activity.

The second option, Dire Beast, summons a temporary pet, which itself deals damage and also generates resources. It's fire and forget, every 30 seconds. Doesn't change gameplay but looks cool.

The third option, Thrill of the Hunt, again changes how the class plays by providing frequent procs of cheaper attacks. It frees the spec from relying on moderate cast-time abilities to generate resources to using many more instant attacks.

The player can pick whichever one he wants. This is a great example of three real choices. All three perform similarly, all three play differently, and the one that doesn't really transform gameplay is visual-- it looks super cool.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on January 04, 2015, 09:22:36 PM
You two just need to smooch and get it over with.

I'd try this game again if there was a 7day trial.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 05, 2015, 01:57:22 AM
Then they wouldn't matter. You're basically saying players shouldn't be able to choose how their characters play, only how they look.

Eh, not really. You still make the broad playstyle choice of what class you pick.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 05, 2015, 06:58:58 AM
I really liked the macro system in RIFT. It let me condense a bunch of abilities into 2-3 keys. I hate rotation based gameplay.

People discussing ability bloat in RIFT are silly though. Yes you had a ton of abilities. It didn't mean you had to use them all. It allowed freedom for the player, though I do agree it was poorly implemented, but the idea was sound. The problem was they marginalized every single soul so that it became bland. Not only that, they used vertical progression in each tree as expansions came out (i.e. the tree got taller). So you further shoehorned builds into putting more and more points into a single tree and you began to take away fun builds. They should of done horizontal progression.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on January 05, 2015, 08:08:04 AM
I really liked the early ability system that allowed for alot of interesting builds (most of which were sub-optimal while a few were too good). Unfortunately alot of the freedom was exchanged for balancing later on. Also some of the dungeons were actually challenging early on in expert mode (atleast for me) until they "fixed" those too. Hell, I even liked the first raid-zone (greenscale's blight).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 05, 2015, 08:40:18 AM
I really liked the early ability system that allowed for alot of interesting builds (most of which were sub-optimal while a few were too good). Unfortunately alot of the freedom was exchanged for balancing later on. Also some of the dungeons were actually challenging early on in expert mode (atleast for me) until they "fixed" those too. Hell, I even liked the first raid-zone (greenscale's blight).

Greenscale's Blight was really fun. Very minimal trash (which dropped loot) and some very fun fights. The fights themselves weren't very long so if you wiped, there wasn't that much of a setup or you really didn't have to spend 15 minutes getting back to the point in where you lost it last time.

River of Souls was a fucking shitstain of a raid, but the fights were kind of cool but the whole place had way too many trash packs. It was annoying.

Even the 10 man raids they put out were actually pretty fun.

Hammerknell was downright awful. Fuck that place. That's the raid that broke me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 05, 2015, 10:38:32 AM
I really liked the macro system in RIFT. It let me condense a bunch of abilities into 2-3 keys.
Surely you will agree that forcing players to macro their abilities together to perform optimally is poor design. If not, there's a huge gulf between us that will never be bridged.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 05, 2015, 10:58:44 AM
I really liked the macro system in RIFT. It let me condense a bunch of abilities into 2-3 keys.
Surely you will agree that forcing players to macro their abilities together to perform optimally is poor design. If not, there's a huge gulf between us that will never be bridged.

Well sure, I would never design that system on purpose. It was fucking retarded. But I think a hotbar combat system with more than 5 buttons is stupid. To me it's the best solution for what DIKU combat has turned in to. We evolved from autoattacks and occasionally bashing, kicking, backstabing in combat or casting fireball 10x and meditating. to getting rid of autos or "white damage" and spamming a dozen abilities on various cooldowns.

I'm all for action combat, but if it's not a TERA-like game, the fewer the abilities and the more automated the better.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 05, 2015, 11:06:28 AM
Limited action sets are current design, as seen in GW2, wildstar, and ESO, and the best way to do it. They work fine and are infinitely better than macroing dozens of abilities together.

WoW doesn't have limited action sets, but it doesn't allow macroed abilities, which naturally led to less redundant abilities. Since they aren't strictly limited WoW has struggled against that problem forever. But at least they acknowledge it is a problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 05, 2015, 11:39:29 AM
The quick slots in this game are stupid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 05, 2015, 12:18:20 PM
Consolitis 2-3 years before (if ever) this sees a console. I never used them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on January 05, 2015, 04:16:45 PM
Limited action sets are current design, as seen in GW2, wildstar, and ESO, and the best way to do it. They work fine and are infinitely better than macroing dozens of abilities together

2-3 of those games are dying.   And GW2 actually ends up having deceivingly more action buttons than it tries to portray. 

Not that I agree, I really want a good MMO that sticks to limited number of abilities at one time (like GW1), but it's far from the current trend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 05, 2015, 04:45:28 PM
But it is the current trend, ESO also has limited action sets, so does DCUO.  In fact i can't think of a recent mmo without them.  SWTOR i guess, and everyone bitched non stop about the huge number of buttons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 05, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
SWTOR has the button thing under control now, but it's still not what anyone (besides Eldaec) would call limited.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 06, 2015, 12:13:07 AM
SWTOR has the button thing under control now, but it's still not what anyone (besides Eldaec) would call limited.

I wouldn't say that... at all.  I was still using 3 full hotbars if you include CC, adrenals, medpacks, and the like.  I quit SWTOR again after doing a few hardmodes because the button smashing took away from being able to enjoy the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on January 06, 2015, 01:40:10 AM
SWTOR has the button thing under control now, but it's still not what anyone (besides Eldaec) would call limited.

I wouldn't say that... at all.  I was still using 3 full hotbars if you include CC, adrenals, medpacks, and the like.  I quit SWTOR again after doing a few hardmodes because the button smashing took away from being able to enjoy the game.
I think it depends on class. As someone who likes buttons (LOTRO loremaster represent!) I was OK with the number of buttons on my sage and operative (especially since there's a clear separation between "buttons to use when healing", "buttons to use when killing", "buttons to use when trolling people in pvp"), but playing a sentinel was REALLY annoying.

OK, there were a few survivability buttons that I didn't have any problems with, but actually doing damage required a very time-sensitive priority system / rotation that required a lot of busywork as well as hitting many buttons that basically did the same thing (single-target or cleave damage) with different resource requirements, cooldowns, and procs. Yeah ok, if I line up my procs and CD abilities just right and use my longer-cooldown channeled attack during burst window ability #1, I'll do 17.63% more dps than if I just hit buttons as they light up... that's not exciting gameplay, sorry. I'll take WOW arms warrior from MOP over that shit any day: even though my dps 'rotation' was basically 4 buttons, it was still a heck of a lot more engaging, reactive, and fun.

e: whoops, forgot to say that this is post-3.0


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 06, 2015, 05:52:15 AM
SWTOR still has too much shit. There's no reason for that game to have more than 5 real abilities, some consumables, and a buff bar on the right for situational cooldowns. And yet, there's still too much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 06, 2015, 11:33:41 AM
SWTOR has the button thing under control now, but it's still not what anyone (besides Eldaec) would call limited.

I wouldn't say that... at all.  I was still using 3 full hotbars if you include CC, adrenals, medpacks, and the like.  I quit SWTOR again after doing a few hardmodes because the button smashing took away from being able to enjoy the game.

This is in 3.0, and they were all buttons you were acutally using? Post-3.0 you should be able to fit all your relevant class abilities for the type of activity you're doing on 2 bars. I actually had room to move my medpacks down to the bottom of the screen from the sides, it was exciting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 06, 2015, 01:01:47 PM
This is in 3.0, and they were all buttons you were acutally using? Post-3.0 you should be able to fit all your relevant class abilities for the type of activity you're doing on 2 bars. I actually had room to move my medpacks down to the bottom of the screen from the sides, it was exciting.

2 bars, 24 fucking buttons... WAY TOO MUCH!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 06, 2015, 01:26:12 PM
Well, for my main character that's including stuff like defensive cooldowns, etc. It's something like 7-9 buttons that I hit often enough to call part of a rotation.

Granted I'd need a second bar config for PVP if I was doing that...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on January 06, 2015, 02:40:11 PM
Well, for my main character that's including stuff like defensive cooldowns, etc. It's something like 7-9 buttons that I hit often enough to call part of a rotation.

Granted I'd need a second bar config for PVP if I was doing that...

PvP in star wars is a nightmare of buttons.  Your normal rotation + defensive cooldowns + interrupts + etc. 

If I can't do everything in 1 hotbar, it's too much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 08, 2015, 08:37:19 PM
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/eb-games-is-removing-all-copies-of-elder-scrolls-online-from-stores/

OMG OMG OMG it's happening it's happening OMG OMG!!!

Looks likely, anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MisterNoisy on January 09, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
About time - I'm surprised they fought it this long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on January 09, 2015, 02:17:03 PM
This is good news.  I'll jump in if it goes f2p, hopefully their model is not as restrictive as SOME games *glances over at SWTOR*.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 09, 2015, 02:49:28 PM
I'm right there with you, if it goes F2P I'm in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 10, 2015, 12:15:11 AM
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/eb-games-is-removing-all-copies-of-elder-scrolls-online-from-stores/

OMG OMG OMG it's happening it's happening OMG OMG!!!

Looks likely, anyway.

From what I heard, the reason they did that was because ESO was kind of overstocked after the holiday buying period.  They did the same thing with Destiny and The Evil Within. 
http://www.mcvpacific.com/news/read/elder-scrolls-stock-removal-just-part-of-normal-stock-recall/0143646

There is a rumour, though, that Zenimax is going to have some sort of "major" announcement next week.  Might be about the console release, maybe conversion to b2b/f2p or something about both.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 10, 2015, 04:21:38 AM
STOP SPOILING OUR FANTASIES DAMMIT!!!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2015, 08:33:08 AM
IF they go F2P now, the console release is dead in my mind for good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 10, 2015, 08:39:48 AM
IF they go F2P now, the console release is dead in my mind for good.
Why? A buy2play console MMO could do extremely well.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 10, 2015, 08:43:23 AM
For other games yes. Not this one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 10, 2015, 09:15:15 AM
Has anything about ESO led you to think they're making intelligent business decisions though?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 10, 2015, 09:16:51 AM
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2015/01/eb-games-is-removing-all-copies-of-elder-scrolls-online-from-stores/

OMG OMG OMG it's happening it's happening OMG OMG!!!

Looks likely, anyway.

From what I heard, the reason they did that was because ESO was kind of overstocked after the holiday buying period.  They did the same thing with Destiny and The Evil Within. 
http://www.mcvpacific.com/news/read/elder-scrolls-stock-removal-just-part-of-normal-stock-recall/0143646

There is a rumour, though, that Zenimax is going to have some sort of "major" announcement next week.  Might be about the console release, maybe conversion to b2b/f2p or something about both.
That just means they were shipped in the same box. Per the Kotaku article, there are still copies of Destiny and Evil Within on the shelves, they just shipped some back because it wasn't selling well at that particular location. They shipped out all of the ESO copies (which does sometimes happen) but telling is that they also shipped out all of the pre-paid cards and those things are never shipped around for stock balancing reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 19, 2015, 03:03:54 PM
I bought a month of ESO.  It's not awful but it's absolutely not the next big thing.  It really needs a big cleanup.  There are bugs that make me mad... like not being able to update or finish certain quests.  I hate wasting time and ending up frustrated.  Some of the quests are relatively lengthy, too.  I'll probably let it run out and check it again after the giant miracle patch.  Someone told me that the patch notes are up to 60+ pages.  I don't know if I should believe that though.  It might have been a joke and I'm very, very gullible.  :(  There will be a very involved justice system and champion system.  I'm really interested in seeing how the justice system works.  PvP kind of sucks but that's on their list, too.  I'll probably be able to make 30 before the sub runs out.  Maybe.  Something is supposed to happen at level 30 but I forget what.  They're allegedly going to revamp crafting, too, especially the provisioning which is really terrible.

Anyway, that's what I've done.  Just so you know.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on January 19, 2015, 03:10:58 PM
Do they have an AH yet?

The crafting was kind of interesting to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 19, 2015, 03:16:13 PM
No, but there are established trading house guilds you can join. They supposedly work fine, and have the advantage of allowing you to teleport close to anyone in your guild. In large trading guilds, that means you can teleport anywhere, anytime.

ESO faced the same problem as Diablo 3-- it uses regional "megaservers". So if all players had access to the same global auctionhouse, the market would immediately become hyper-efficient, driving prices way down on commodity items and hyper-inflating currency. You'd be able to purchase incredibly powerful items super-cheaply while leveling, rendering item drops and quest rewards garbage and short-circuiting the reward loop inherent in RPG progression. And then once you hit the elder game "good" items would be fantastically expensive.

That assumes enough people play the game to have that effect, of course. As is, I kinda doubt it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 19, 2015, 03:32:19 PM
That's the thing I miss the most... an AH.  I did join a guild and there's a store but the whole guild store thingy is not fun at all.  This justice system, crafting revamps and all the stuff they've been promising will have to be really good to make up for it. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Montague on January 21, 2015, 08:36:33 AM
Console launch June 9th, sub-free starting March 17th

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/2015/01/21/eso-heads-to-consoles-june-9th



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on January 21, 2015, 09:15:20 AM
We did it everybody


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on January 21, 2015, 09:16:00 AM
Limited action sets are current design, as seen in GW2, wildstar, and ESO, and the best way to do it. They work fine and are infinitely better than macroing dozens of abilities together.
I'm under impression the current design is in general trying to make these games more action-like, so the next logical step is clearly to require a controller and put all moves under 4 buttons and right stick combos :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 21, 2015, 09:17:15 AM
Finally, The game is not bad at all, but didn't feel like paying a subscription. Free to play with box subscription means I can pop in to check stuff whenever I want. It won't give them the money they hoped to get when they financed it, but from now on it'll do it good, as it has for so many other MMOs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 21, 2015, 09:26:20 AM
Looks like a good F2P model, especially for new players that don't particularly care about bonus xp and crafting gains, but just want to level a couple characters to the cap. No lame inventory/chat/character slots limitations, apparently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on January 21, 2015, 09:37:06 AM
Now the question will become, how pay-walled will this game be?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on January 21, 2015, 09:50:04 AM
Now the question will become, how pay-walled will this game be?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 21, 2015, 09:53:32 AM
were any date guesses set or


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 21, 2015, 09:58:04 AM
They stopped selling 6 month subs in December, and pulled from stores shortly thereafter, so we all knew it would be in less than 6 months. Don't think we started going into specific dates, though.

Looks like a reasonable monetization approach too; experience gain, cosmetics, and actual content.

Looking forward to this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 21, 2015, 02:26:34 PM
I look forward to playing again myself. I liked the game but didn't enjoy the unfinished feel of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 21, 2015, 02:57:30 PM
You can play free if you want in March.  If you still want to sub, you get what ever their cash shop money is called every time you sub.  It's like 1500 for 1 month, 4500 for 3 months... that sort of thing.  I think it'll be stuff like mounts and pets and clothing.  They claim there won't be items sold for real money that would put freebie players at a disadvantage.  In June they'll have the Mac stuff and console stuff launched.  I don't know what that will be like but I can't afford to update my consoles.  A shame, really, because there are things in this game, like the quickslots that I don't even use much because it's a pain.  I think that sort of stuff would work much better on a console.  I think I'll sub one more month just to see if it's better.  The new things they're adding should really improve it.  If enough people from here start playing we should join a guild together.  I miss playing with you guys.  You make me laugh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tazelbain on January 21, 2015, 04:12:19 PM
At this point, slight variations on things that have been worn out for at least a decade just isn't going to cut it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on January 21, 2015, 05:50:13 PM
I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.

I'm feeling confident. Don't think they shut down by Jan 2016, F2P will give them a decent boost, even if it is a dead cat bounce. Unless they blow it on the cash model of course.

Well one of you won a steam game it seems.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 21, 2015, 05:57:14 PM
Back when I was still playing there were addons that made quickslots suck a little less.  Have they added that new solo zone or is everything in the endgame still group only?

Honestly the biggest thing that upsets me is Signe saying there are still bugs in the quest lines.  That is completely insane, they have had enough time to fix that crap by now.  Of the thousand or so quest lines in the game an acceptable rate of bugs at this point would be five.  Having to fix things in three places for PC, PS4 and XboxOne is only going to slow them down.  Maybe that console launch will have all the bugfixes that should have been done months ago...

I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.

I'm feeling confident. Don't think they shut down by Jan 2016, F2P will give them a decent boost, even if it is a dead cat bounce. Unless they blow it on the cash model of course.

Well one of you won a steam game it seems.
For the love of spite whoever loses needs to buy the other ESO as the steam game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on January 21, 2015, 08:03:32 PM
Standalone TES games are typically on a five-year ship cycle.  This positions the online game to create a tie-in to the next standalone game.  I don't expect their systems to integrate, but their marketing and online content sure will. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 21, 2015, 08:20:54 PM
Their next game should be fallout so this whole thing shouldn't have any relevance.  If it isn't fallout, that would suck.  I want fallout.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 21, 2015, 09:14:55 PM
ESO is deliberately set thousands of years before the single-player games so direct continuity is not really a concern.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on January 21, 2015, 09:15:15 PM
Their next game should be fallout so this whole thing shouldn't have any relevance.  If it isn't fallout, that would suck.  I want fallout.

Me, too.  So much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 21, 2015, 11:23:01 PM
I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.

I'm feeling confident. Don't think they shut down by Jan 2016, F2P will give them a decent boost, even if it is a dead cat bounce. Unless they blow it on the cash model of course.

Well one of you won a steam game it seems.

Not yet. The bet is about whether the game folds entirely, and we'll see in a year who wins.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 5150 on January 22, 2015, 07:11:12 AM
Console launch June 9th, sub-free starting March 17th

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/2015/01/21/eso-heads-to-consoles-june-9th



I have an unused retail key, if I activate this now does it qualify me for anything over free players or should I wait until free to play launches? (could I even use it then?)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 22, 2015, 07:15:38 AM
You still have to buy the game itself, there is just a no sub option, so you wouldn't have to buy the game.  They used to have some way to transfer your PC account to console, that was time limited I think.  So maybe if you activate it now you might still be able to swap it to a console version for free (if you wanted to do that).  You'd have to look into it to make sure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 22, 2015, 07:22:35 AM
I still think the game will go F2P by March, and have shut down or completely retooled before the end of 2015. Ingmar and I have a steam game riding on this.

I'm feeling confident. Don't think they shut down by Jan 2016, F2P will give them a decent boost, even if it is a dead cat bounce. Unless they blow it on the cash model of course.

Well one of you won a steam game it seems.

Not yet. The bet is about whether the game folds entirely, and we'll see in a year who wins.

We all knew the game would go F2P, that would have been a silly bet. The idea was if the game totally shit the bed. The fact it went F2P earlier than I thought it would is a good thing for my bet. But after about August we'll have a decent idea if it's going under.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 22, 2015, 08:35:27 AM
Going Buy-to-Play might give it enough legs to last the year.  Going f2p definitely would have.  We'll see if it's enough of a bump, but I doubt cutting the sub alone is enough to ensure its long-term prospects.

I still think it's a better model, but you still need a decent game since that initial cost acts as a barrier.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 22, 2015, 08:49:58 AM
My hope is that they screw up the release and make the cash shop so ridiculous it confuses everybody.

I'd say it's still 50-50 if it lasts the year if the console influx of cash bombs out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on January 22, 2015, 09:35:54 AM
They plan to relaunch the game with the console release, that's why all the PC SKUs were pulled from shelves. They also revamped the new player experience (again).

ESO could do quite well as a B2P game. Bioware turned SWTOR around and they're incompetent tools, the Zenimax Online guys seem (slightly) more clueful. But of course that depends on implementation, and we just don't know enough yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on January 22, 2015, 11:01:19 AM
ESO is deliberately set thousands of years before the single-player games so direct continuity is not really a concern.

I must have missed that when I was playing the beta... makes me wonder what happened in all that time to make the good looking denizens of TESO into the Gordon Ramsay-esque troglodytes of Skyrim...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 22, 2015, 11:04:12 AM
They plan to relaunch the game with the console release, that's why all the PC SKUs were pulled from shelves. They also revamped the new player experience (again).

A total relaunch with the console release would win me the bet if they closed all the servers down for an extended time. So I'm fine with that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on January 22, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
[...] makes me wonder what happened in all that time to make the good looking denizens of TESO into the Gordon Ramsay-esque troglodytes of Skyrim...

Nothing happened.  You're a prisoner in every game; the guards punch you in the face just before the initial fade from black, thereby ruining your vision, so you just see the world at whatever resolution and with whatever faces each game has.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on March 17, 2015, 12:32:02 PM
The Elder Scrolls Online is now The Elder Scrolls Online: Trammel Tamriel Unlimited and is now using the Guild Wars model of free to play after you buy a box (i.e. no more subscriptions).



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mandella on March 17, 2015, 01:17:00 PM
The Elder Scrolls Online is now The Elder Scrolls Online: Trammel Tamriel Unlimited and is now using the Guild Wars model of free to play after you buy a box (i.e. no more subscriptions).



I believe the term is Buy To Play (BTP).

Honestly, I think it is the best compromise with the FTP crowd. Buying the box encourages at least a little investment into the game, where as FTP just brings the browsers, griefers and gold farmers and such to generate infinite troll accounts..

I imagine you can still have a subscription if you want to?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on March 17, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
The Elder Scrolls Online is now The Elder Scrolls Online: Trammel Tamriel Unlimited and is now using the Guild Wars model of free to play after you buy a box (i.e. no more subscriptions).

I'd rather a 3-7 day free trial to try it out before I actually throw money at the box cost. Going to be waiting some more.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on March 17, 2015, 02:00:02 PM
The Elder Scrolls Online is now The Elder Scrolls Online: Trammel Tamriel Unlimited and is now using the Guild Wars model of free to play after you buy a box (i.e. no more subscriptions).
I believe the term is Buy To Play (BTP).

Honestly, I think it is the best compromise with the FTP crowd. Buying the box encourages at least a little investment into the game, where as FTP just brings the browsers, griefers and gold farmers and such to generate infinite troll accounts..

I imagine you can still have a subscription if you want to?
Yes. There's an ESO Plus membership you can purchase. So I should've said no more mandatory subscriptions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 17, 2015, 02:20:50 PM
Been playing it the past few weeks in anticipation of this.  For some reason it's grabbed me better this time than my attempts in beta.  (I suppose way better since those ended with me quitting in the tutorial and two minutes after landing on the starting isle.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 17, 2015, 02:29:40 PM
It was good before and I am sure it's even better now after all the patching and fixing and adding (stuff, including the Justice System). It's definitely worth a reinstall if you had bought it before.

Is it worth getting a box now? Depends on where you stand to MMORPGs (Not Skyrim) these days. If you can still stomach the formula, compared to all the traditional ones out there this is definitely good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on March 18, 2015, 02:16:31 PM
Hmm. I remember having some fun with this game near launch (completed the main quest + first set of maps, then quit). I had four gripes that kept me from subbing:
  • Greedy cash shop for a game with a monthly sub (I guess this is resolved now)
  • Lots and lots of bugs (I suppose this one got better too)
  • Responsiveness and latency problems, especially when it came to blocking / getting the most out of strong attacks; exacerbated by playing on a US server from EU
  • Obnoxious inventory issues (and no, I wasn't a hoarder)

For those who played recently: has the game improved in any of these areas, and if so, how? I'm especially curious about latency and combat responsiveness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 18, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
Latency is fine for me, but I'm in Texas, so not far from where ever the NA servers are located.

Inventory is a problem, but I am a hoarder.  Would probably be okay, but I'm saving metal, wood, cloth, leather, runes, and reagents.  The did revamp Provisioning so there are fewer ingredients, but there still seem to be a ton.

Having a 1 month sub from just starting the game I got 2000 ESObux.  I could buy a pet or two with that.  There wasn't much else in the shop that interested me, but there also wasn't anything that wasn't ignorable either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on March 18, 2015, 05:51:49 PM
Are combat animations any better than they were at release?  I think my biggest problem in terms of game play was that combat didn't feel engaging at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 19, 2015, 02:34:31 AM
TESO combat isn't that great coming from TERA, but is otherwise more than OK and much better than the rest of the competitors. To me the simple fact that you click the left mouse button and your weapon actually swings is enough to make the combat more compelling than pretty much every other MMORPG out there that doesn't use the same system. But to each their own and about that, I am curious, the combat of what MMO do you consider engaging these days?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 19, 2015, 08:53:14 AM
They are better, yes.  Nothing to write home about, but I didn't feel like I had to force myself through the tutorial, either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 19, 2015, 10:49:06 AM
Hmm. I remember having some fun with this game near launch (completed the main quest + first set of maps, then quit). I had four gripes that kept me from subbing:
  • Greedy cash shop for a game with a monthly sub (I guess this is resolved now)
  • Lots and lots of bugs (I suppose this one got better too)
  • Responsiveness and latency problems, especially when it came to blocking / getting the most out of strong attacks; exacerbated by playing on a US server from EU
  • Obnoxious inventory issues (and no, I wasn't a hoarder)

For those who played recently: has the game improved in any of these areas, and if so, how? I'm especially curious about latency and combat responsiveness.

Cash shop?  I don't remember there being one when it launched.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on March 20, 2015, 09:29:17 AM
If I see a box copy in any of my local game shops I'm sorely tempted to give this another shot; going about this similar to Guild Wars was exactly the right way to switch to F2P.
Been playing a fair bit of Skyrim in the last few months so I'm up for a bit more Elder Scrolls action. At least the PCs/NPCs aren't all hideously ugly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on March 20, 2015, 10:54:33 AM
Hmm. I remember having some fun with this game near launch (completed the main quest + first set of maps, then quit). I had four gripes that kept me from subbing:
  • Greedy cash shop for a game with a monthly sub (I guess this is resolved now)
  • Lots and lots of bugs (I suppose this one got better too)
  • Responsiveness and latency problems, especially when it came to blocking / getting the most out of strong attacks; exacerbated by playing on a US server from EU
  • Obnoxious inventory issues (and no, I wasn't a hoarder)

For those who played recently: has the game improved in any of these areas, and if so, how? I'm especially curious about latency and combat responsiveness.

Cash shop?  I don't remember there being one when it launched.
There was a cash shop selling stuff like the 25-euro imperial edition (one of the races was only available if you chose this option -- does this count as P2W?), 12-euro mounts (which were actually REALLY useful, considering horses are so expensive I only had enough money to buy one at around level 30 normally), etcetera. This is the sort of stuff that I'd accept in a F2P game, but not a game I paid 55 euros and a sub price for.

(yeah, I know that basically every other game incl WOW has a cash shop now, but I found ESO's more obnoxious than most.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on April 01, 2015, 02:43:54 PM
So, uh, is this any good for a casual game?

I tried to get back into SWTOR, I logged onto an alt in the middle of the desert of Tatooine and immediately felt overwhelmed by dread and logged off.

I can pick up an ESO key for pretty cheap on those shady key reseller websites.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 01, 2015, 02:59:05 PM
It's a decent single-player experience.  Duo hasn't been bad, but mostly that's trading items and doing delves together, not the story.  It does make me wish they'd come out with an Elder Scrolls-Minecraft completely open-world hybrid game that you can share with a small number of players.

If you're going with a shady site, consider the Explorer's pack, too, so you can roll any race in any alliance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 01, 2015, 04:59:29 PM
Hmm. I remember having some fun with this game near launch (completed the main quest + first set of maps, then quit). I had four gripes that kept me from subbing:
  • Greedy cash shop for a game with a monthly sub (I guess this is resolved now)
  • Lots and lots of bugs (I suppose this one got better too)
  • Responsiveness and latency problems, especially when it came to blocking / getting the most out of strong attacks; exacerbated by playing on a US server from EU
  • Obnoxious inventory issues (and no, I wasn't a hoarder)

For those who played recently: has the game improved in any of these areas, and if so, how? I'm especially curious about latency and combat responsiveness.

Cash shop?  I don't remember there being one when it launched.
There was a cash shop selling stuff like the 25-euro imperial edition (one of the races was only available if you chose this option -- does this count as P2W?), 12-euro mounts (which were actually REALLY useful, considering horses are so expensive I only had enough money to buy one at around level 30 normally), etcetera. This is the sort of stuff that I'd accept in a F2P game, but not a game I paid 55 euros and a sub price for.

(yeah, I know that basically every other game incl WOW has a cash shop now, but I found ESO's more obnoxious than most.)

None the of the races let you win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on April 01, 2015, 05:18:06 PM
Without a sub hanging over me, yeah, this is my casual MMO now.  It's like a second, slightly inferior, Skyrim with other folks running around.  The quests and the combat is what do it for me.  I don't know if I'll hit 50, but sit down, swig a beer and kill some critters, yeah I like it.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: CaptainNapkin on April 01, 2015, 05:24:14 PM
I just picked this up a day ago. Looks great. It's new to me. Looks like it could fill my screw around at my own slow pace explorer style, but too soon to tell. Seems to be a game where you can build your character however you like and not gimp yourself too bad. Or just respec later pretty easily if you do something you end up not enjoying. 8 character slots a bonus for a guy like me.

Edit to say I concur 100% with Tannhauser at this point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: veredus on April 01, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
If you're going with a shady site, consider the Explorer's pack, too, so you can roll any race in any alliance.

Totally second this. I picked one up for something like $1.00 to add to my account several months ago. Makes it way more enjoyable to just play what you want where you want it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2015, 12:48:38 PM
I'm considering giving this another go this weekend as they're doing some sort of 'Welcome Back to Tamriel, Beta testers!' weekend. 180gb of game to download, though, and their servers are throttled to fuck, I'll be lucky if I have the damn thing installed before the end of the event...

Also, if they think I'm going to pay $75 for a digital key after the fact, they're utterly insane.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on April 15, 2015, 12:58:02 PM
I'd have tried it again this weekend too, but that download size is a non-starter.  Plus I'd only be able to play it on Sunday anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2015, 01:08:17 PM
I think I might shit-can this, then - I've been hovering at 7% downloaded for about 2 hours. I just don't think I care enough to let it use up all my bandwidth for what looks like the next goddamn week.

Maybe I'll take another look when the actual game cost isn't hilariously unreasonable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2015, 01:24:59 PM
It is on Steam, so look for it during the big sales.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on April 15, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
180gb of game to download, though,

 :ye_gods:

Jesus.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 15, 2015, 03:57:53 PM
I got no less than 6 emails from Zenimax Online over this shit. Go away, ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 16, 2015, 01:46:34 AM
180g? That doesn't make any sense. Are you sure? I doubt it's that big on my PC. Or even half of it.


EDIT: Steam says "80 GB available space required".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Gimfain on April 16, 2015, 06:21:40 AM
33GB download for me. Launcher was 185MB.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 16, 2015, 06:48:02 AM
Yes, same here. 80 GB is what apparently the system needs to work, unpack, and install. But once it's done it will only take about 35 GB of space on your Hard Disk. And it does NOT download 80 GB, let alone 180.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 16, 2015, 07:54:48 AM
I got no less than 6 emails from Zenimax Online over this shit. Go away, ESO.

They are really getting desperate to try and make this thing work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 16, 2015, 03:37:42 PM
Nah, he probably signed up for the beta that many times. I got a couple fistfulls of emails too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on April 17, 2015, 01:03:57 AM
I got 1 email. And to be fair they've hardly emailed me at all before, it's not been nearly as spammy as many other games I've hated in the past.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 17, 2015, 05:57:37 AM
Nah, he probably signed up for the beta that many times. I got a couple fistfulls of emails too.
I only signed up once. I got like 5 different flavors of "Come back!" messages over the free weekend, free F2P currency, and other shit within a day, and one email a day or two before those.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on April 17, 2015, 06:44:55 AM
So...this is now buy a box and enjoy the whole game for kinda free?  And does that mean you can do so while ignoring the cash shop?  Because if so, that's interesting, assuming a box can be found at a sane price.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 17, 2015, 06:54:32 AM
That's how ESO did it, and they were very successful. That doesn't necessarily mean Wildstar will take the same path. They may be more aggressive with monetization, which would be a shame. Hopefully they'll follow ESO.

Edit: Err, I thought this was the Wildstar thread. So to answer your question: yes, that's how it works. ESO has very light monetization, once you buy the buy you can play all the content currently available without needing to pay anything. Cash shop is for consumables, cosmetics, and convenience. Future released content will of course be paid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 17, 2015, 07:09:36 AM
So...this is now buy a box and enjoy the whole game for kinda free?  And does that mean you can do so while ignoring the cash shop?  Because if so, that's interesting, assuming a box can be found at a sane price.
Yes.  The shop has cosmetics and boosters.  Nothing in the game has been changed to require the boosters, so you can completely ignore them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 17, 2015, 01:14:45 PM
Just got ANOTHER email.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 18, 2015, 10:04:52 AM
Those of us that found ESO's lack of aggressive monetization refreshing may have been a bit premature (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/164507/are-on-screen-advertisements-for-the-crown-store-acceptable/p1).

I found this sort of thing annoying in Neverwinter, and that game is F2P, not B2P.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 21, 2015, 11:39:17 AM
And another email.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 21, 2015, 12:23:34 PM
Sign up and tell us how it is already Fab.

You tease.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 21, 2015, 04:45:54 PM
Fuck that noise.

(http://i.imgur.com/1lTDVfx.jpg?1)

this isn't even all of them either since I think I missed a couple in my inbox somewhere.

I literally played in one beta weekend.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on April 22, 2015, 06:20:53 AM
I have the same, plus a few more, from one weekend in Beta. The 80gb download and the spamming put me off from bothering again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 22, 2015, 02:57:19 PM
If they hooked your friends, you'd sign up too. You know you would.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 5150 on April 23, 2015, 05:42:04 AM
I fired this up during the free weekend and finally got around to registering my retail key.

I've made it to Tamriel (same place I got to in beta) and I have a couple of questions before I go any further

Can I redisign my face anywhere?
Can I become a vampire (I tend to pick Dark Elf based on becoming a vamp later on)?
I've got the Imperial edition, is there any point to the imperial other than being able to pick any faction?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 23, 2015, 05:54:37 AM
You can't redesign your face/body (yet, they'll probably add it at some point), anybody can become a vampire, and Imperials are one of the best races for stamina-based builds. Also with the "explorer's pack" you can play any race on any faction.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on April 23, 2015, 05:57:32 AM
I have the same, plus a few more, from one weekend in Beta. The 80gb download and the spamming put me off from bothering again.

Yup, same here.

Also, the beta was awful.  I mean, like horrendously bad awful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 23, 2015, 06:18:26 AM
IF things trundle along with the console release it looks like Ingmar will win our bet, but I still think there's an outlier chance this thing implodes under financial shitstorms and is forced to close or retool.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 23, 2015, 06:26:27 AM
The game is much better than it was in beta, and as we said multiple times the download is 33 GB, not 80.

Not necessarily anyone's cup of tea, but plenty of the obstacles to give this a fair try have been removed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 23, 2015, 06:49:36 AM
I have no doubt the game has improved. If it hadn't after all these months of work, that would be the shocking story.

The question is where it stands financially in relation to expectation. At some point, the thing has to turn over and start making big money or there's no reason to let it keep going, long after it's off sub model and on F2P. It all depends on what Zenimax had as a budget and the current revenues.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 23, 2015, 08:54:52 AM
Game is so big that it exceeds the PS4 blu-ray size limitation and will have a 15 GB day 0 content download to even begin playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 23, 2015, 09:13:36 AM
Those of us that found ESO's lack of aggressive monetization refreshing may have been a bit premature (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/164507/are-on-screen-advertisements-for-the-crown-store-acceptable/p1).
Good news. They aren't doing that anymore (http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/1754753/#Comment_1754753).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 23, 2015, 09:14:34 AM
Quote
We’re working on better in-game messaging about limited-time offers and sales that aren’t as intrusive.

It's not going away, just getting tweeked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: sam, an eggplant on April 23, 2015, 09:16:54 AM
I don't mind if a B2P game makes the store icon glow, or pops up a message in the chat box when first logging in, or whatever. They earned the right to non-intrusive advertising by removing subscriptions.

I do mind giant 38 point bold type directly in the center of the screen saying HEY WE HAVE STUFF TO SELL YOU every hour or so. That's what they're fixing. That's what Neverwinter does, but it's F2P, not B2P. (And I still found it very annoying there.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on August 23, 2015, 09:19:43 AM
I warn you I shall ignore the warning.

I've started this again a few weeks ago and it seems much improved for me.  One thing though... we used to have a guild.  Bat-Country?  It seems to have disamapeared although I found a guild store in Daggerfall that I can buy stuff from but not deposit stuff into.  Anyone else come across this sort of thing?  Is it just me or is it memorex? 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on August 23, 2015, 08:55:22 PM
Guild stores differ, depending on where you access them from.
If you are accessing guild store from the 'Bank' you are accessing your own guild store.
If you are visiting Guild NPC vendors, those are not your guilds. They are rented by rich guilds to vend their goods on the streets of daggerfall.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on August 24, 2015, 06:03:54 AM
Still saving up for a horse, you bourgeois pigs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on August 24, 2015, 07:42:25 AM
I know that about guilds but it was a Bat Country guild NPC and, as far as I can tell, there is no more Bat Country.  Or maybe it was Bat-Country.  Anyway, it just seems odd that the store would still be around if the guild isn't there anymore.  You can't access it through the Banker, either.  Or, at least, I can't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Flood on August 24, 2015, 08:06:05 AM
I've been playing quite a bit.  I joined a "trading" guild because I thought it would allow me access to other players who could craft me some equivalent level Seducer armor (without gouging me for 4-5k gold like last time) as long as I was contributing to the greater good.  That turned out not to be the case - it's mainly a bunch of younger-ish peeps spouting off stupid shit in chat and begging for help / items / gold.  I see "rekt" and "them feelz" a lot.

Ok so plan B.  I've sorta turned my first toon into a clothier and cooking mule and stopped actively leveling him for now.  I parked him in town and just have him researching things and deconstructing items.  Maybe (eventually) he'll be able to craft armor for my main.  I have the gold to pay for someone to craft a new level appropriate set for me, but I'm loathe to part with it.

My main is cruising through regular levels (37) and I'm a waaampire now.  I went and got bitten myself; I'm not paying one of the dicks in chat to get bitten.  Plus my understanding is Werewolf and Vampire turns will be purchasable via Crowns soon.  I'm leveling alchemy on my main but very slowly, badly, inefficiently.  Whatever.

TL;DR - if there's an F13 necro guild or you guys want to group up for adventure(!) I'm always down.  In game ID is: @Geiss.  Signe and I just seem to play opposite times.
 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on September 06, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
I've playing for a few weeks and had just gotten to a point where I thought I knew how to play. Then the patch hit, and damned if I know what happened but my Templar is suddenly dying all the time on the boss mobs. I want to like this game but am finding it hard to like.

My templar is magicka based, level 22 and uses resto staves. My friend has a templar that uses one hand/shield, and is doing fine.

I can't seem to find a class/build that I enjoy enough to keep going. The community is kind of terrible (although Daggerfall is nicer than Ebonheart by a long shot).

I just can't seem to get the hang of playing properly. I like the world exploration though - I just don't have the whole how combat works thing down, I think. Either I don't understand it right, or I do but hate it. I don't know.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on September 06, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
Yeah, patches could do that.  I would have thought they stopped that nonsense by now.  At 22 you should be able to kill anything* no matter what though so my guess is that they made a major mistake with your template like "you can no longer heal yourself".

* There are a few exceptions where boss mechanics can kill you under level 50 though.  The warrior guild serpent woman fight for example, you have to kill her helper bubbles or she heals to full.  Other bosses have mandatory interrupts and stay out of fire type things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Flood on September 06, 2015, 01:12:42 PM
Hmmmmmm.  It might be your gear?  I'm not 100% sure how much gear directly affects game play mechanics-wise, but I know that around level 37 the same thing happened to me. 

I had been playing la la la, kinda cruising along poking my nose into places, jabbing things with my daggers and / or swapping to staff to raise my skills...then all of the sudden I started getting stomped.  Routinely.  Dungeon delves?  Ahh, no.  Open world boss mobs?  We scoff at your temerity in attacking us!  I didn't really know what to do.  I hadn't drastically altered my play style, so unless there was something completely borked about the game difficulty curve I had missed?

I started looking around at my stats, my skills, and my gear.  I realized my armor (which I paid to have crafted at the time) was rated out for a level 24 and I had just turned 37.  After much wrangling I managed to get a new set of armor, and weapons, crafted; rated out at level 38.  Since I'm a magicka based setup myself (Nightblade) I wear 5 light armor (Seducer's) and 2 heavy armor (Twilight's Embrace).  I also had Twilight's put on the weapons (I dual wield on bar 1).  That way I get the most out of my Light armor passives and the most AC out of the heavy pieces and when I'm dual wielding I'm getting Twilight's Embrace bonus up to +4.

ANYWAY.  tl;dr - the aggregate effect of higher AC armor, armor set bonuses (Seducers, Twilights) and higher base damage weapons seemed to turn things around.  I also dumped my initial trading guild for a *real* trading guild.  They are much more mature, helpful, and they have access to quite a few resources.  If you (Xan) or Signe or whoever wants to join please let me know and I'll get it coordinated.  Or, if you want some in game help with quests, or gold (I pretty much gave up crafting for now since the guild has it covered WAY better than me) I'd be happy to provide either / both.

P.S. - check and make sure your skills and skill morphs you have slotted aren't keying off the wrong stat ( IE - stamina).  You can tell when look at the skill description - if it says "consumes Stamina" that skill will be no bueno for you as a magicka based Templar.

P.P.S - TESO isn't hybrid friendly.  You need to pretty much go all in stat-wise.  For example, I'm currently level 40 and magicka based.  I have 2 points in Stamina, 4 points in Health and every other point in Magic.  And the min maxxer / end game d00ds would say even that spread is a waste of points.  I spent a few points in Stamina so I can Dodge roll once or twice, and "wasted" those points in Health because I often charge into groups of mobs (and die).   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on September 09, 2015, 01:30:19 PM
I bought this for PCand never really got around to playing it. I got a ps4 physical copy cheap and it works/plays pretty good on console as a so far single player game. Is there a way to install the disk so the disk isn't needed to play on ps4? My lazy butt doesn't want to change disks if I don't have to. I know ffxiv didn't need a disk, but can't figure a way around this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on September 09, 2015, 06:25:17 PM
As far as I can tell the only way to go diskless on ps4 is to buy it online through the playstation store.  Game is huge so you'd need a lot of hard drive space too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on September 10, 2015, 06:32:41 AM
Fun fact: disc-based PS4 games will load up your storage just as much as downloaded ones.  The solution is to upgrade the PS4 hard drive.  I am tempted to put a SSD in there but I'm not 100% that the games would not freak out at the speed bump.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on September 10, 2015, 07:11:24 AM
There is an article around somewhere which talks about the speed gains from a SSD. It's not as much as you'd expect for initial map loads.

That said, the PS4 is by far the easiest console to upgrade the hard drive on. It's even supported. There's an article on how to do it at sony's site with a link to download the system image to a USB stick. You boot while holding down a button on a (usb connected) controller and format it and you're done.

It's very slick. I've got a 1 TB hybrid drive in there that is roughly 85% full.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on September 10, 2015, 07:29:25 AM
In the case of TESO, the load screens are faster than any other game I own on the console, which I find fascinating at a certain level.  Some other games are a real sonofabitch, though.  I'd probably be fine with a 7200rpm piece of shit as long as I didn't have to delete disc-based game files so I can download a Destiny patch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on September 10, 2015, 10:08:35 AM
I went with this drive. You have to use a 2.5" drive unless you get some adapter thing.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178340


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nevermore on October 23, 2015, 03:10:22 PM
Hmm.. the Humble Bundle store has this at 66% off for a couple of days.  Very tempting, though I'd have to wait another week or two before I could actually play it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on October 23, 2015, 06:30:31 PM
£16.99 is definitely a 'I would pay for TESO' price point. It's still £49.99 on Steam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on October 26, 2015, 07:20:08 AM
It's not terrible now, if you're looking for a time waster.  Probably worth it at that price.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on October 26, 2015, 08:23:00 AM
It has taken a surprisingly long time to break the $40 barrier on PS4.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on December 09, 2015, 01:04:38 PM
Free Weekend starting tomorrow; guess I'll finally have a look at it after the not so good previous try during beta.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: squirrel on December 28, 2015, 11:38:54 PM
Got this as a gift on the PS4 which it seems a lot of people did as it's crowded in the low in area. So far it's not horrible, although damn elder scrolls lore can be tiresome. Its a moderately fun MMO on consoles without a sub. I'm also playing Albion Online. Not sure which is worse.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on December 29, 2015, 08:22:49 AM
I have it now on PS4 as well. I picked it up around thanksgiving for roughly $25.

It's OK. I also picked up Witcher 3 at the same time and it's like the two games are from alternate universes. I played about 15 hours of ESO before I fired up Witcher, and I haven't opened ESO since.

You may think that is an unfair comparison, but I (and most people, it seems) am playing ESO as a single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on December 29, 2015, 09:19:16 AM
I tried to play the game multiple times since launch but never could make it past level 10. I finally picked it up on PS4 and pushed through that level 10 block, and it gets better around the 2/3 mark in the first EP zone. The second zone is pretty good too.

They designed the new player experience very roughly and never properly fixed it. I think the game is doing well though, there are lots of people playing. It's not WoW, but it's a good themepark MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on December 29, 2015, 10:52:02 AM
I think the game is doing well though, there are lots of people playing. It's not WoW, but it's a good themepark MMO.

Scratches my MMORPG itch when I need it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on January 04, 2016, 11:50:49 AM

You may think that is an unfair comparison, but I (and most people, it seems) am playing ESO as a single player game.

Perfectly fair comparison. Both have to compete for your time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on January 06, 2016, 08:43:24 AM
Some friends and I picked this up on the Steam sale and started running around yesterday. So far we're having fun with it (very early game) and it's kind of enjoyable to play a game and not know anything about it or the mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on March 23, 2016, 03:19:17 PM
FYI this is on sale at Greenman Gaming for 75% off plus another 20% off on the sale price.  So if you wanted the Imperial Edition you can get it for $15.

http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/ca/en/pc/games/mmos/elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited-imperial-ed/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on March 23, 2016, 03:27:49 PM
Is it just me or does anybody else first read "Tamriel "as "Trammel"?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on January 31, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
The next expansion is going to be going back to Morrowind and is bringing in a new class, the Warden.  I might start actually play this again when it comes out.

http://massivelyop.com/2017/01/31/elder-scrolls-online-announces-full-fledged-morrowind-expansion-for-june-6/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5xst39v8wE


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Korachia on February 01, 2017, 04:30:22 AM
Loved the good old Morrowind game back in the day! If I got time, I might just buy this. Is ESO enjoyable as a single player experience? Or is it easy enough to find casual groups to play with occasionally?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on February 01, 2017, 06:31:18 AM
Loved the good old Morrowind game back in the day! If I got time, I might just buy this. Is ESO enjoyable as a single player experience? Or is it easy enough to find casual groups to play with occasionally?

I thought so... on the PS4 at least. Grouping was pretty seamless though I have only done that a handful of times. Of course, I haven't played in awhile because life.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Yegolev on February 01, 2017, 06:48:59 AM
They are really bumping the graphics to a new level per that video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 02, 2017, 02:33:59 AM
I've recently stopped playing in order to clear some of my single-player backlog, but TESO is a very, very enjoyable MMO as solo experience too:

+ Nice, detailed quests
+ nice environments
+ good crafting system once you get the hang of it
+ reasonable B2P/subscription/store policy (and how enoyable the game is without spending another dime but the initial entry cost)
+ LOTS of content
+ good advancement system
+ great for Elder Scrolls fans: beside the world, they give you the illusion of freedom you have in the single-player ES titles, being able to pick up lots of stuff, read long books, etc.)

Graphics are...so and so, definitely too "plastic".

- Animations in general are horrible. Spell effects are worse than horrible. Combat lacks impact feeling compared to TERA, BDO.
- stay away if you're fed up with traditional DIKUs and their formula

Can't speak about endgame content because I'll likely won't ever get there anyway (the only MMO where I, let's say, "maxed out" a character was UO with a 7x GM, so you get the idea :P)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on February 02, 2017, 04:27:47 AM
My #1 complaint about ESO that still seems to hold with the b2p edition is ... inventory management.

Basically, when I played back in 2014, I had to just straight up ignore my craft skills while leveling, or my inventory would become an overflowing nightmare every hour or so due to the many different types of crafting materials (and cthulhu help you if you wanted to level provisioning / alchemy). What's annoying is that they are clearly aware of the problem since they added the 'crafting bag' that works just like the crafting bank in GW2 and post-WOD WOW... but it's only available if you sub, it isn't even in the cash shop. Yeah, no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 02, 2017, 06:10:04 AM
My #1 complaint about ESO that still seems to hold with the b2p edition is ... inventory management.

Basically, when I played back in 2014, I had to just straight up ignore my craft skills while leveling, or my inventory would become an overflowing nightmare every hour or so due to the many different types of crafting materials (and cthulhu help you if you wanted to level provisioning / alchemy). What's annoying is that they are clearly aware of the problem since they added the 'crafting bag' that works just like the crafting bank in GW2 and post-WOD WOW... but it's only available if you sub, it isn't even in the cash shop. Yeah, no.

Regarding crafting management, yeah, I imagine it becomes really cumbersome when you start doing it in large bulks and at high levels  (I mean crafting levels). I used the crafting bag and yeah, it's VERY handy to say the least; still, it's not THAT bad when you have two or three characters and you expand a bit your bank storage via the crown store.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on February 02, 2017, 06:22:07 AM
I can't think of a single thing ESO did that another MMO didn't do better.  ESO was such a blah game.  The only reason to play it was because you had nostalgia for Morrowind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: 01101010 on February 02, 2017, 09:40:34 AM
I can't think of a single thing ESO did that another MMO didn't do better.  ESO was such a blah game.  The only reason to play it was because you had nostalgia for Morrowind.

And because it is on the PS4 without a monthly fee to play.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on February 02, 2017, 08:35:45 PM
They are really bumping the graphics to a new level per that video.

Nah, that had Blink studios written all over it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on February 06, 2017, 06:02:41 AM
"Homestead" update is being patched in right now: it introduces housing to the world of ESO along with some other features and bug fixing. Monster-size patch notes:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/318838/pc-mac-patch-notes-v2-7-5


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: grunk on February 07, 2017, 12:09:21 PM
when dafuk are they going to patch in the MMO?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tale on February 08, 2017, 06:55:56 PM
Steam has this on sale. As a complete noob, which is the version to buy?

The Elder Scrolls® Online: Tamriel Unlimited (40% off)
The Elder Scrolls® Online: Gold Edition (50% off)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on February 09, 2017, 11:22:11 PM
Steam has this on sale. As a complete noob, which is the version to buy?

The Elder Scrolls® Online: Tamriel Unlimited (40% off)
The Elder Scrolls® Online: Gold Edition (50% off)

Tamriel Unlimited is just what they called it when it went F2P. Technically I think it's now called "One Tamriel" since they introduced the go anywhere level-scaling stuff. Either way, it's just the base game. Gold Edition is the base game plus the first 4 DLCs that they released, which you would either have to buy separately or subscribe to gain access to.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 11, 2017, 08:34:46 PM
I used some of my crowns from subbing to buy one of the large homes, Hunding's Palatial Hall.  It's very spacious with a large courtyard and even your own private beach.  That being said, the gold costs for houses, even small ones, are freaking REdonkulous. :ye_gods:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu5P0rVcG5Q


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on February 22, 2017, 09:28:34 AM
Some of the potential skills for the new warden class.

(http://gallery.pub.goha.ru/gals/news/2017/02/13/warden/orig/4cc73a9beaab6abc7378f8c2b60ce7ce.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on March 05, 2017, 09:55:05 AM
I'm still playing this although I've taken a few relatively long breaks.  It's only gotten better, in my opinion.  You can quest anywhere because of the level scaling, which goes a long way in extending the life of the game.  The map is BIG and when I start a new character, I don't have to spend like forever going through quests and dungeons I've done several times in the past.  After a bit, I can start going to sections of the map I've not seen before.  This helps keep up my interest.  I very much like the fact that I can follow people in to hard dungeons and group dungeons and, as long as I participate in the battle, get a quest update and loot.  It makes me feel naughty and it's useful.

I sub when I play because they get that bit right, too.  The $15 sub fee gives you more than most games, including 1500 cash shop coins.  I've taken to spending the coins on these crates they have now.  Every month or so (I think) they change them and I can't believe the amount of cool loot I get.  Costumes, mounts, hair styles, pets... HAIRSTYLES... and they're very generous with the number of items they include or I'm very lucky.  If you get a reward you already have, they give you some special coins that you can save up and buy the crate rewards that way.  It's very fun.  More fun than just buying some old stuff.  My sister bought me a pre-order for the expansion which I'm very much looking forward to.  I don't usually play pet classes but that bear looks totally bausome, although I wish the war dog didn't have stupid looking armour on. 

There are some issues for me, though.  No AH is one.  I really enjoy playing the AH in games.  I might eventually join a trading guild to see if it gives me that feeling again.  The quickslots are still stupid.  I hate it, even with a mod.  The justice system... I don't think you should get nicked by the cops if you get away with a murder.  It just makes better sense.  I know nothing about the champion system or vets or that sort of stuff because I've only ever leveled to 34.  I like that I'm so slow that there's still lots of stuff to explore and fiddle with.

And that's the end.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on April 11, 2017, 08:40:02 PM
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-04-10-the-elder-scrolls-online-is-going-free-to-play

Quote
Bethesda really wants you to play The Elder Scrolls Online.

Not content with paying someone $1m just to try its MMO, Bethesda will next throw open the gates of Tamriel to everyone, regardless of platform, for a full seven days.

It's a generous offer - the full game, without restrictions, 500 Crowns of premium currency to spend at the in-game store, plus a discount on the full game if choose to purchase. All your progress carries over, too.

The free trial begins 3pm UK time tomorrow, 10th April, and lasts until 18th April. PC and Mac, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One players can all join in.

All of this comes ahead of The Elder Scrolls Online's upcoming Morrowind expansion, which launches in June. Edwin recently had a look at how the addition will change the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on April 12, 2017, 01:28:10 AM
Yeah, my mate's been banging on about that.  Probably time for the wife and I to give it a wee retry.

I played it way back in Beta and was just horrified at how utterly awful it was.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 13, 2017, 01:58:34 PM
I might try this with the new class in the expansion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 14, 2017, 09:56:25 AM
Have messed around with this briefly. Seems decent enough. Will try to give it more time before the free week is over to see if it is worth throwing money at.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on April 14, 2017, 10:45:28 AM
I can't get past the builds in this game. There are simply too many options for me to figure out what to build. However, if I go looking for popular builds, they're always really weird. The best build for leveling my DK is a bow/dual wield build and neither of those are interesting to me; it's not why I chose the 'warrior' type.

If I just play what I want, then I seem to always be barely winning fights. I really wish the class and skill stuff were more streamlined.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shannow on April 15, 2017, 06:04:49 AM
Played it on the free trial. Meh, might as well play skyrim. Less arseholes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hayduke on April 16, 2017, 07:01:02 PM
I kind of like it, very confusing at times but respecs are cheap at least.

I can't get past the builds in this game. There are simply too many options for me to figure out what to build. However, if I go looking for popular builds, they're always really weird. The best build for leveling my DK is a bow/dual wield build and neither of those are interesting to me; it's not why I chose the 'warrior' type.

I don't know what warrior archetype you mean but if it's the Conan style then 2h is probably not too far behind dw and bow. It's just recommended I think to have a dps weapon style to kill stuff. Since skills level if you have an item equipped or an active ability in your ability bar most people seem to recommend going for a skill from each class line and a skill from two different weapon types. If you took a 2h skill and a sword and board skill you could keep both leveled even if you never really used sword and board while killing stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on April 20, 2017, 10:33:33 AM
I subbed for 3 months because I am terrible with money. There is SO much I am trying to remember from my first (short) time around. Finally started reading the SA thread for some sort of guidance. Have the strange problem of having too MUCH to do...I can't decide which thing to work on first. Even when I do decide, something else inevitably pops up and I get distracted for several hours.

Oh, and I bought a lion to ride with my sub crowns  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 08, 2017, 01:18:34 PM
Definitely an unfair comparison graphic-wise, but it's a nice throwback nonetheless:

Morrowind 2002 (unmodded) vs. TESO 2017; featuring views of Seyda Neen, Balmora, Vivec and the landscape in general:

https://youtu.be/qn46trwngMQ


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on May 10, 2017, 05:52:15 AM
I ended up bored and fired this back up, never made it past VR8ish in the original version. So much better, lots of QoL improvements, and having fun. Enough to sub for 3 months, it's worth it for the crafting bag alone. I'm sure at the end of that time I'll be playing something else, but for now I'm enjoying it. Even the player base is less douchey than I remember.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 04, 2017, 07:16:59 PM
I can't get past the builds in this game. There are simply too many options for me to figure out what to build. However, if I go looking for popular builds, they're always really weird. The best build for leveling my DK is a bow/dual wield build and neither of those are interesting to me; it's not why I chose the 'warrior' type.

If I just play what I want, then I seem to always be barely winning fights. I really wish the class and skill stuff were more streamlined.

I finally found a good all-around level build and pushed to 50 on my DK recently. Once at 50, the mobs melt a bit faster and I think that will continue as gear progresses and Champ points build. Now that I feel a bit less fragile, the game is far more enjoyable and I'm have a good time. Ready to re-visit Morrowind in few days.

My only real complaint is that I wish purchases and characters were available cross-platform. To have access to my PS4 toons and content on my PC would be freaking awesome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 04, 2017, 08:44:09 PM
I can't get past the builds in this game. There are simply too many options for me to figure out what to build. However, if I go looking for popular builds, they're always really weird. The best build for leveling my DK is a bow/dual wield build and neither of those are interesting to me; it's not why I chose the 'warrior' type.

If I just play what I want, then I seem to always be barely winning fights. I really wish the class and skill stuff were more streamlined.

I finally found a good all-around level build and pushed to 50 on my DK recently. Once at 50, the mobs melt a bit faster and I think that will continue as gear progresses and Champ points build. Now that I feel a bit less fragile, the game is far more enjoyable and I'm have a good time. Ready to re-visit Morrowind in few days.

My only real complaint is that I wish purchases and characters were available cross-platform. To have access to my PS4 toons and content on my PC would be freaking awesome.

The good thing about the Champ system is that the points are shared across all of your characters, whether they're lvl 1 or 50.  I'd take your DK to at least 160cp, which is as high as the gear levels go.  Morrowind has been pretty fun so far.  There's lots of interesting stories and quests to do and the main story line has you helping Vivec...get his mojo back, so to speak.  The warden class is not too bad but not as fun as I'd hoped.  I really like pet classes in rpg's but I felt a little let down with the bear.  You can't really do much with it and I feel the sorcerer pets are more useful and interactive.  I don't really think this "expansion" was worth what they're charging as it is just a larger DLC zone with a new class.  Still enjoying myself and having fun, though, which is the main thing.

I'm still surprised by the number of people who play.  At least for PC, every zone I go to has lots of people running around.  You would think most people would be playing in Morrowind but the older zones are just as busy.  The fact you can start a fresh character anywhere, even Morrowind, is one of the things I love about ESO.  There's no starter zones anymore which makes play alts a lot better because you're not repeating the same content over and over again.  There's only so many times in WoW or LOTRO that you can play through Elwyn Forest or the Shire before the will to play an alt diminishes.  With ESO, you can go from 1-50 playing in 2 or 3 zones so you don't have to repeat the same content over and over again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 05, 2017, 11:18:56 PM
Been playing a lot of this over the past few weeks. It is a great single player game, and just enough interaction with the great unwashed to make it feel populated. Tooling around Morrowind has been cool, but I miss the guards muttering insults at me whenever I walk by like they used to :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2017, 06:19:48 AM
I'm surprised that I have enjoyed this as much as I have. There are small complaints--there is a bit of sameness in the combat rotations after a while, and only a few mobs that make you really think or change your button spamming. I wish there was a bit more weird gear that RNG drops on you now and again. I wish there was a bit more of a feeling of mixing really dangerous areas in to basically safe areas--I love that sense in Skyrim that I can just wander along and suddenly I'm in the middle of deep shit. Don't get that so much here. Wish the cities had a bit more personality. And the long zone loads when you're doing something like running quests out of the Thieves Guild get really annoying after a while.

But it's basically fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 06, 2017, 10:16:09 AM
Agreed on all counts.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MrHat on June 06, 2017, 11:54:50 AM
I have been feeling like playing an MMO recently, this seems to fit the bill.

Just want to make sure, this is $60 for the base+morrowind as well as a monthly sub?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Slayerik on June 06, 2017, 12:44:15 PM
Yeah, I was like....I'm gonna check this out. *heads to Steam, sees price, closes Steam*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Khaldun on June 06, 2017, 05:46:02 PM
I'm playing fine without a monthly sub.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rishathra on June 07, 2017, 05:51:28 AM
The sub is really only for if you want to go big into crafting.  Otherwise, you can do without it and miss nothing.  Also, the $60 price tag for Morrowind is for the special edition I believe, so unless you really want some pets, a horse, and a few costumes, you can just get the expansion alone for $30.

Full disclosure:  I got the special edition, and a subscription, because I have no self control and really wanted that spider pet.  I don't even like crafting in general, but that crafting bag is pretty damn convenient.  But I acknowledge that none of it is really necessary.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on June 07, 2017, 07:35:41 AM
My sister got me the standard upgrade for a pressie.  I'm assuming that's the $30 one that Rishathra is talking about.  I'm only level 7 because I can't make up my mind whether to play a dw and bow stam warden or a 2h and bow stam warden.  :(  I almost never play magic anything in this game but I wonder about that, too.  I also wish I could take that ridiculous armour off my poor doggie.  It's not as if he needs it.  I sub because I like the endless space in the crafting bag. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 07, 2017, 01:44:23 PM
My sister got me the standard upgrade for a pressie.  I'm assuming that's the $30 one that Rishathra is talking about.  I'm only level 7 because I can't make up my mind whether to play a dw and bow stam warden or a 2h and bow stam warden.  :(  I almost never play magic anything in this game but I wonder about that, too.  I also wish I could take that ridiculous armour off my poor doggie.  It's not as if he needs it.  I sub because I like the endless space in the crafting bag. 

My warden is almost 40 and I'm using bow/2h.  Damage is pretty decent so far.  I'm more of a stam build player myself and it seems pretty viable for wardens.  Getting the Betty Netch morph for regen helps a lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 07, 2017, 07:58:05 PM
Do not try to craft without a subscription. You will quit or kill yourself inside a week just fucking with inventory.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on June 07, 2017, 09:24:30 PM
Thanks, Ginaz, for the netch tip.  I like the 2-handed/bow so far, too, although it could be because the last stint of ESO I used dw/bow and need a change.  Dual wield may be a bit more fun but 2-handed damage is just sick.  In a good way.  I also made a magic warden, 2 destruction staffs, just because I didn't have ANY magic users in my character line up.  It's actually kind of fun... at least for the first six levels.   :oh_i_see: 

As for crafting, the crafting bag has spoiled me so much that I'm not sure I can craft in any other game ever again.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 08, 2017, 06:56:08 PM
Do not try to craft without a subscription. You will quit or kill yourself inside a week just fucking with inventory.

I don't really do much crafting myself (one of my guys is at 50 provisioning) but I love the crafting bag.  It lets me loot everything everywhere without having to worry about bag space.  As long as I'm actively playing, I'll probably sub.  Well played Zenimax/Bethesda.  Well played.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 08, 2017, 07:14:42 PM
Thanks, Ginaz, for the netch tip.  I like the 2-handed/bow so far, too, although it could be because the last stint of ESO I used dw/bow and need a change.  Dual wield may be a bit more fun but 2-handed damage is just sick.  In a good way.  I also made a magic warden, 2 destruction staffs, just because I didn't have ANY magic users in my character line up.  It's actually kind of fun... at least for the first six levels.   :oh_i_see:  

As for crafting, the crafting bag has spoiled me so much that I'm not sure I can craft in any other game ever again.   :ye_gods:

I forgot the mention the morph for the netch you want as a stam warden is called Bull Netch, though it's fairly obvious from the tool tips what each one does.  It restores some of your stam over 23 secs and increases weapon and spell damage by 20% over that time as well.  It's good to try and keep it up at all times. There's also an ability in the healing tree, the first one you get,  that morphs (morph is called Enchanted Growth) into a stam and mag regen buff when cast on other players, and your bear, which is nice for dungeons.  If you're looking for a magic based build use the set up Alcast has in his video.  He's pretty knowledgeable about all things ESO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2KqJPyt7dM

Edit: Here's another way to go with a 2h/bow stam warden build.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9qu2MCMEDA&t=20s


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Signe on June 09, 2017, 08:44:17 AM
Thanks again!  Although I still intend to level a magic warden at some point, I've gone back to my stamina warden and made it to level 12 so far.  This new area really is bigger than I thought it would be.  They even made a new tutorial intro for it.  I'm pretty impressed. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: luckton on June 17, 2017, 11:50:27 AM
Picked up the base game for $10 just to waste time until Destiny 2. It's not bad for no-sub. Still running around the newbie island. Any tips for someone that doesn't plan on getting into crafting?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 17, 2017, 06:09:14 PM
The biggest thing I'd recommend is making sure you have a skill from every major class line on your hotbar. This makes sure when you hit 50 you'll be close to max level on the most important skills you need. There's no option you can't course correct through respec, though there's an optimal build depending on what you're doing.

If you're not crafting, just play the quests and level as you like.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on June 22, 2017, 10:16:20 AM
I have spent my last few sessions running around trying to finish off rare fishing accomplishments. I imagine I will eventually get to 50th level by accident.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on September 14, 2017, 03:59:00 AM
If anyone is still playing this and has a somewhat active guild I wouldn't mind an invite please. (@xwaste in game)

Trying it out now and it feels better than at launch, getting into it more than I did then.  The crafting bag is a miracle, the game is so much better without the inventory management.  It's a little annoying to know they designed a problem then make you pay for the solution, but atm I'm just enjoying looting all the things.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: grunk on December 13, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Picked up the base game for $10 just to waste time until Destiny 2. It's not bad for no-sub. Still running around the newbie island. Any tips for someone that doesn't plan on getting into crafting?

lol, hows that Destiny 2 working out for yeh? lmao...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2018, 09:52:43 PM
Does this game actually has randomly generated loot as in Diablo? If it does, it could be the only MMORPG with this awesome and unique feature.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on March 26, 2018, 03:46:42 AM
No randomly generated loot a la Diablo. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 26, 2018, 07:52:16 AM
Ok then. I thought it was cause it's based on suffixes and prefixes and other buffs and procs, so I totally thought it was randomly assigned some of that. Boo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 26, 2018, 08:35:26 AM
random loot is like

look, I'm a single issue voter when it comes to games


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 26, 2018, 09:02:55 AM
Auto Assault (  :heartbreak: ) had it. That did not last long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 26, 2018, 09:59:53 AM
Auto Assault was terrible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 26, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
Yeah, BUT!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 26, 2018, 07:11:46 PM
no buts


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on May 21, 2018, 03:56:44 PM
Early access for the newest expansion is now live for those that pre-ordered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on June 09, 2018, 09:38:42 PM
Looks like you buy Morrowind with Crowns now.  Cost is 3500.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 24, 2018, 08:16:14 PM
Got a free copy of this (thanks again Ginaz) and I have mixed feelings so far. I started as a Nightblade with plans to go stealth archer (since that's how you play Elder Scrolls games) but stealth feels sort of shit and overall the game feels more MMO than ES. So now I'm thinking about rerolling as some kind of tank and just embracing the MMO. Is it possible to transfer items or gold between toons? If so, do they have to be on the same faction?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on July 25, 2018, 12:25:42 AM
All your characters share a bank, so you can pass crap between them to your heart's content. I would seriously advise against leveling as a tank...it will take goddamned forever. You can level all the weapon types and swap around as often as you would care to at max level.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 25, 2018, 06:11:30 AM
Well I didn't mean literally leveling sword and board, but more leveling a class that can tank and occasionally pulling out the sword and board for leveling dungeons. Good to know the bank is account bound; is the craft bag account based or do I need to dump that into the bank too?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on July 25, 2018, 06:50:16 AM
craft bag is account based too


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 25, 2018, 08:46:09 AM
How important is faction choice? Should I keep my alt and main on the same faction, or does that not matter?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on July 25, 2018, 03:13:48 PM
It only matters for pvp, for everything else faction barely matters at all, I think maybe just what zone it directs you to after the tutorial.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on July 25, 2018, 04:15:35 PM
Well I didn't mean literally leveling sword and board, but more leveling a class that can tank and occasionally pulling out the sword and board for leveling dungeons. Good to know the bank is account bound; is the craft bag account based or do I need to dump that into the bank too?

You'll still need to level up your sword and board skills if you want to tank though (maybe you know this already and I've misunderstood).

I play ESO as a Dragonknight Orc Tank (ie sword and board) and levelling was ok. If you want to do a dungeon, you go to the dungeon finder and a group pops up within seconds, while DPS might have to wait 15 minutes.

You can run through delves and just ignore the trash mobs and go get the skyshard and kill the boss.

You can spam dolmens and I'm not sure it makes any difference what weapon you are using or how much damage you actually do.

Having said that, nothing wrong with levelling a DPS weapon and the sword and shield at the same time. You can switch between them any time you like, even in the middle of combat, after all.

If you're using a craft bag then I guess you're going to craft. Here's a tip - start researching asap and always be researching.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on July 29, 2018, 08:39:30 PM
Do we have any sort of Bat Country? I'm on PC NA as @Rendakor if anyone wants to add me either to a hypothetical guild or as friends.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on July 30, 2018, 11:51:55 AM
@WayAbvPar PC NA. I am usually fishing, but would be happy to join up for some dungeon runs or world bosses or PvP or anything. Also happy to answer questions in game (I am FAR from an expert, but some of the basics have seeped into my head).